MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1827420526

Determinants of Factors that Influence Small Ruminant Livestock Production Decisions in Northern Ghana: Application of Discrete Regression Model

2014· article· en· W1827420526 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Faizal Adams, Kwasi Ohene-Yankyera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournals & Books Hosting (International Knowledge Sharing Platform) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersForeign Affairs and International Trade CanadaInternational Fine Particle Research Institute
KeywordsLivestockMultinomial logistic regressionProduction (economics)RuminantAgricultural scienceLogistic regressionFarm incomeGeographySocioeconomicsAgricultural economicsBusinessEconomicsPastureBiologyStatisticsMathematicsForestry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study applied Multinomial Logit (MNL) model to survey data from a sample of 249 farm households in northern Ghana. The model was used to investigate factors that influence farm families ’ decisions to raise a particular small ruminant species (i.e., sheep or goat or both). The MNL analysis indicates that the probability of raising sheep, goat or both animals was influenced by agro-ecological zone, sex and religious background of farmers, risk attitude and income from small ruminant production. In devising strategies (to select farm households) to improve subsistent small ruminant production system, livestock technical staffs must recognize important demographic and farm characteristics as well as risk and income perceptions associated with sheep and goat of the households. In addition, such programs must be supported with improved livestock housing technology that can provide opportunities to control sheep and goat production risks, including theft or predator attacks, disease infestation and exposure to harsh environmental conditions (rains and sun rays).

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournals & Books Hosting (International Knowledge Sharing Platform)Same topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207