MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132172250

Can Robots Raise Chickens?——Chia Tai Builds a Four-in-one Mode for Industrialized Chicken Raising

2015· other· W7132172250 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaoming Zhu, Qiong Zhu, Yifan Ren

Bibliographic record

VenueCEIBS Institutional Repository · 2015
Typeother
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsCentre Casa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaising (metalworking)RobotMode (computer interface)Key (lock)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

正大集团主营的农牧业,尽管自动化程度在不断提升,但是,人仍然是其中的主角。然而,在其位于北京平谷区峪口镇西樊各庄的养鸡场里,正大集团却引入了机器人养鸡,一个鸡舍由一个人和一个机器人负责。尽管人已经成为养鸡场的少数民族,但正大还计划减少人,让机器人负责更多的工作。建立这样一个机器人养鸡场,初始资金投入就需要7.2亿。为了让这个创新能够落地实施,为了让这个机器人养鸡场能健康持续地运营,正大创立了“四位一体BOT(Built-Operate-Transfer)产权式农业”模式(简称:四位一体模式)。即正大集团联合北京平谷区政府,成立了合资公司“谷大农业投融资平台”(简称“谷大”),由这个平台负责融资并进行项目建设;“谷大”找到北京银行作为主要融资来源;而项目用地是平谷当地1416户农民所成立的合作社所拥有的土地。这个项目竣工后,由正大蛋业有限公司负责经营管理。正大蛋业每年按照投资总额的10%-12%返利给投融资平台,平台再用于还贷及返还农民租金等收益。四位一体模式能正常运转的基础,是正大蛋业要盈利,这样它才能有资金返还给平台。然而,在一个鸡蛋产品缺乏公认标准、鱼龙混杂的市场上,正大蛋业能否盈利呢?为了让机器人养鸡场能够持续运营,正大还需要做什么准备呢?本案例主要讨论企业如何把控创新机遇以及如何落实科技创新的问题。

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCEIBS Institutional RepositoryFrench-language works237,207