MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W98059553 · doi:10.19182/remvt.9803

Etude comparative de l’infestation des bovins Namchi (<em>Bos taurus</em>) et Goudali de Ngaoundéré (<em>Bos indicus</em>) par la tique adulte <em>Amblyomma variegatum</em>

2001· article· fr· W98059553 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Mbunkah Daniel Achukwi, Vincent N. Tanya, O. Messiné, Leo M. Njongmeta

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays tropicaux · 2001
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicTrypanosoma species research and implications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Universitaire de la Francophonie
KeywordsBiologyInfestationBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

L’attraction relative exercée par les bovins taurin Namchi et zébu Goudali de Ngaoundéré sur la tique adulte Amblyomma variegatum a été évaluée à travers l’exposition de ces animaux à l’infestation naturelle au pâturage. Le comptage des tiques adultes a été effectué une fois par semaine pendant six semaines. La méthode de l’analyse de variances (Anova) avec données répétées et les modèles linéaires généralisés (Glim) ont montré que l’infestation individuelle a été variable. Les Namchi ont moins attiré les tiques adultes que les Goudali (P < 0,05). Le taux d’infestation a varié aussi avec le temps et lesite de fixation des tiques sur l’animal (P < 0,05), la zone ventro-génitale ayant porté la plus grande charge tandis que les oreilles, le dos et la croupe ont été les moins infestés. Ces résultats suggèrent une résistance naturelle des Namchi à la tique A. variegatum. Cette aptitude innée des bovins Namchi à attirer le minimum de tiques pourrait être exploitée dans la mise en place d’une stratégie de contrôle durable et non-nocive à l’environnement.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations13
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevue d’élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays tropicauxSame topicTrypanosoma species research and implicationsFrench-language works237,207