MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979114178 · doi:10.5539/sar.v2n2p76

Analysis on the Willingness of Peasant Households for Forestland Use Right Transfer in the Background of Collective Forest Tenure Reform: A Case Study in Guangyuan City in Sichuan Province

2012· article· en· W1979114178 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Minfeng Tang, Fang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeasantEndowmentChinaBusinessUnit (ring theory)Agricultural economicsTransfer (computing)LogitPopulationEconomic growthOrdered logitGeographySocioeconomicsDemographic economicsEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>The objective of this study is to get a better understanding and accurate information regarding factors affecting the forestland transfer, providing first-hand information, and proposing policy implications. The forestland use transfer is the main content in the collective forest tenure reform in China at present. Individual household, as a basic unit of forest production, should be the major participant in the forestland transfer. Using survey data of 329 rural household in 18 villages of three counties, this paper analyzes influencing factors on rural householders’ willingness to partake in forestland use right transfer by employing Binary Logit Regression. Nineteen variables, which were identified as characteristics of householders and households, natural endowment of forestland resources and householders’s awareness of forestland policy. Results indicate that householders’ awareness of pertinent policies and population of the household demonstrate significantly positive effects, while forestland area owned by individual household shows a markedly negative effect on peasants’ willingness to participate in forestland transfer. Some policy implications are discussed in this paper.</p>

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)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207