MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1953050501 · doi:10.21083/ajote.v1i1.1590

Competency Improvement needs of Women in Agriculture in Processing Cocoyam into Flour and Chips for Food Security in South Eastern Nigeria

2011· article· en· W1953050501 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Juliana Adimonye Ukonze, Samson O. Olaitan

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Teacher Education · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLivestock and Poultry Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbiaFood securityAgricultureBusinessFood processingPopulationGovernment (linguistics)MarketingGeographyLocal governmentEnvironmental healthMedicineFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focused on the identification of competency improvement needs of women in agriculture (WIA) in processing cocoyam into flour and chips. To achieve these objectives, four research questions guided the study. Descriptive survey research design was adopted for this study. The study was conducted in South-eastern Nigeria made up of Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo State The target population for this study was 362 women processors. It was found out that women processors required improvement in cocoyam processing enterprise as follows: planning competencies (12 competency items), processing cocoyam into flour (13 competency items), processing cocoyam into chips (13 competency items) and marketing (7 competency items). It was therefore recommended that co-operatives, government agencies, and relevant NGOs should help use the findings of this study to improve acquisition of competencies of women in cocoyam processing for food security in South-Eastern Nigeria.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Teacher EducationSame topicLivestock and Poultry ManagementFrench-language works237,207