MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1779434610 · doi:10.5539/jas.v7n9p197

Determinants of Farmer Participation in the Vertical Integration of the Rwandan Coffee Value Chain: Results from Huye District

2015· article· en· W1779434610 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nkurunziza Issa, Ngabitsinze Jean Chrysostome

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTobit modelProbit modelProductivityProbitQuality (philosophy)BusinessSample (material)AgribusinessMarket accessRegression analysisCensored regression modelAgricultural economicsAgricultural scienceFarm incomeAgricultureEconomicsProduction (economics)Economic growthGeographyEconometricsMicroeconomicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents results on socio-economic factors influencing decision to participate in cooperative and intensity of coffee in Huye District of Rwanda. The analysis uses primary data collected from Huye district with representative sample size of 230 comprised both non-members and members of cooperatives. The study used Probit regression model to test the status of decision to participate and Tobit regression was used to determine the factors influencing the intensity of coffee. The results generally show that gender, education level, farm size, off-farm income, non-access to credits and non-record keeping are all important factors explaining decision to participate. On the other hand, off-farm income, no-access to credit, farm size, experience, farm under other crops cultivation and farm contract agreements found to influence the intensity. The paper concludes by suggesting strategic policy targeting to build stronger farmer’ cooperatives. These should allow the farmers to have access on market, inputs, credit, farm contract, price stability and trainings. Thus improve coffee productivity in terms of quantity and quality in the study area.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207