MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1718301211

Gender roles and expertise in pest management and cabbage production in Tomohon, Indonesia.

2000· article· en· W1718301211 on OpenAlexaff
Rebecca H. Hallett

Bibliographic record

VenueTropical Agriculture · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Development and Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegrated pest managementPEST analysisAgricultureProduction (economics)SowingPest controlAgricultural scienceBiologyToxicologyBusinessAgronomyEcologyMarketingEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determination of the relative involvement of men and women in agricultural systems is often critical to the successful implementation of extension services and new pest management technologies. This study emphasizes the importance of including both male and female farmers in future extension services and pest management training activities. Interviews were conducted in three villages in the sub-district of Tomohon, North Sulawesi, Indonesia, to obtain information on pest management practices, levels of pest management knowledge, and gender roles in cabbage production. It was determined that male farmers had a higher participation rate in fieldwork than females; both women and men performed all production tasks, except the solely male task of applying insecticides; women were most active in planting, weeding, and transplanting; levels of biological knowledge about cabbage pests were very high but quality of pest management knowledge was poor; and, no gender-based differences existed in terms of pest management knowledge. The latter finding was contrary to expressed beliefs that men were more knowledgeable.

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)0.001
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTropical AgricultureSame topicAgricultural Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207