MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975881667 · doi:10.5539/ass.v8n10p108

Rural Women Farmers and Food Productivity in Nigeria: An Example from Ekiti Kwara, Nigeria

2012· article· en· W1975881667 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. A. Olawepo, Bola Fatulu

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood securityProductivityEarningsAgricultureLivestockBusinessProduction (economics)SocioeconomicsAgricultural productivityAgricultural economicsGeographyAgricultural scienceEconomic growthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the earning activities of Rural Women Farmers in Ekiti Kwara to identify processes of food production and Agriculture within a farming season.200 farmers were examined through the use of questionnaire administration. Results were processed through the use of simple tabulations and inferential statistics. Findings revealed that that 75.5% of the respondents have access to land for farming while the remaining 24.5% not to have a land of their own ,but they are those that depend on either family lands or go on leasing from other land owners. Apart from their mothering roles, women here are contributing heavily to nutritional development, farm employment and food security. About 54.5% of the women farmers in the study area provides food for their household; topmost in their farm productions are in the area of vegetables, fruits livestock and fishery. However, income earnings from farm is generally low due to the subsistent nature of their production .The result of the stepwise multiple regression showed that about 75.69% differences in the variation of women participation is explained by three variables of supplementing income, debt servicing measure and food security respectively and appropriate recommendations are presented accordingly.

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)0.000
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 score0.638
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social ScienceSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207