MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1833443572 · doi:10.4314/acsj.v21i1

Tree and shrub species integration in the crop-livestock farming system

2013· article· en· W1833443572 on OpenAlex
Mulugeta Getu Sisay, Kindu Mekonnen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreHouston Advanced Research Center
KeywordsAgroforestryShrubWatershedAgricultureTree plantingArable landLivelihoodBusinessAfforestationEcosystem servicesGeographyEcologyEnvironmental scienceEcosystemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tree and shrub integration has been promoted as a means of enhancing rural livelihoods through sustaining watershed provision of services and products, especially in Ethiopia. However, research to support this effort has been limited. This study was conducted in Borodo watershed in central Ethiopia, to identify constraints to the process of tree and shrub integration in the watersheds. A household survey was conducted, supplemented with focus group discussions (FGDs), key informant interview and field observations. A total of 31tree and 11 shrub species were identified in different niches in the watershed. The key constraints to tree and shrub species integration included shortage of arable land, soil cracking, free grazing, lack of seedlings of desired species and water-logging. The main catalysts to the integration were availability of information on improved integration and cash for investment in the required activities, easy land certification and market opportunity for tree and shrub products. The tree and shrub growing niches preferred by farmers were homesteads (95.5%), gully sides (67.4%), stream sides (61.8%) road sides (60.7%), and crop land (12.4%). It is essential to address the factors that hinder tree and shrub species integration at various growing niche so as to improve the availability of tree products and services. Moreover, the capacity of farmers should be upgraded through training and demonstration of best tree planting, management and utilisation practices.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.610
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0080.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.178 · 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