MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1577265260

COMMUNITY PARTICIPATORY SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT BYELAW FORMULATION IN THE HIGHLANDS OF CENTRAL ETHIOPIA

2014· article· en· W1577265260 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chilot Yirga, Michael Waithaka, Miriam Kyotalimye, Bezaye Gorfu

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEthiopian Institute of Agricultural ResearchInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsStakeholderCitizen journalismBusinessEnvironmental planningGovernment (linguistics)Environmental resource managementStakeholder engagementStakeholder analysisPolitical sciencePublic relationsEconomicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Widespread adoption of sustainable land management (SLM) innovations by land users is considered key in addressing the rampant land degradation in the high rainfall and densely populated highlands of eastern and southern Africa. However, absence of enabling policy environments hamperes massive adoption of SLM innovations among rural communities. This paper presents the process and outcomes of a participatory approach for formulating and implementing SLM byelaws in the central highlands of Ethiopia. The participatory approach utilised three complementary tools, namely, stakeholder analysis, community needs assessment and policy dialogues. The stakeholder analysis revealed that several government institutions, non-government organisations (NOGs) and community groups promote SLM practices. Poor coordination among actors, top-down approach in planning and implementation, and limited capacity of communities hamperes SLM scaling up efforts. Stakeholder engagements culminates in establishing innovation platforms (IPs) at district and watershed levels tasked with coordinating SLM scaling up efforts. While the community needs assessment identified and prioritised SLM issues that needed to be resolved, the policy dialogue engaging IPs formulated three SLM byelaws and mechanisms for implementation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207