MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1902173890

A New Green Revolution: A Review of Agricultural Reform in Sub-Saharan Africa

2012· review· en· W1902173890 on OpenAlexaff
Knut Tjensvoll Kitching

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreen RevolutionPanacea (medicine)AgricultureContext (archaeology)Political sciencePolitical economyEconomic growthDevelopment economicsEconomicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Green Revolution in Africa represents a set of agricultural reforms driven by technological innovations such as High Yield Varieties of seed, fertilizers and complex irrigation regimes. Though perceived as a panacea by major development banks and governments, the Green Revolution has not always enjoyed success in the Global South. This paper reviews some of the current agricultural reforms that form key dimensions of the Green Revolution policy regime, and considers some outstanding critiques of its application in sub-Saharan Africa. The paper opens with a consideration of the key reforms associated with the Green Revolution, and then moves to a discussion of seed technologies, land rights and tenure, and trade and social policy. Situating these debates within a larger regional context of shifting climate and ecological change, this paper aims to present a critical examination of some of the primary goals and projects of the Green Revolution in Africa and concludes that the way forward traces a line between Western techno-scientific reforms and uniquely African approaches to agriculture.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207