MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1560378681 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.45777

Assessing Africa's Food and Nutrition Security Situation

2005· preprint· en· W1560378681 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Todd Benson

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2005
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalnutritionFood securityProductivityQuarter (Canadian coin)Stunted growthDevelopment economicsEconomic growthPopulationPopulation growthAgricultureEconomicsGeographyEnvironmental healthMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

...in more than a dozen African countries the rate of undernourishment is more than 40 percent, exceeding 50 percent in those countries experiencing or emerging from armed conflict. As a result, more than a third of African children suffer stunted growth and face a range of physical and cognitive challenges not faced by their better fed peers. Ultimately, undernutrition underlies around 2.9 million deaths in Africa annually — more than a quarter of all the deaths occurring on the continent each year. The economic costs of such widespread undernutrition are enormous. This is because the economic growth of each nation — which requires enhanced economic productivity — depends upon broad improvements being made in the intellectual and technical capacity of its population. But, this in turn depends upon people receiving adequate nutrition, particularly women in their childbearing years and young children. So, only once African countries have secured the basic food and nutritional needs of their populations will they be able to achieve the broad-based economic growth necessary to reduce." -- from Text

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.002

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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207