MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982183000 · doi:10.3828/idpr.2011.3

Smallholder farmer participation in local and regional food aid procurement: <i>Assessing the benefits and challenges in southwestern Uganda</i>

2011· article· en· W1982183000 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Development Planning Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProcurementBusinessFood securityPaymentDistribution (mathematics)Food insecurityEconomic growthDeveloping countryScale (ratio)MarketingAgricultureEconomicsFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Local and regional food aid procurement (LRP) – the purchase and distribution of food aid within andbetween developing countries – has recently become a common occurrence. In contrast to traditionalmethods of food aid provision, which are costly cross-border operations and often slow to respond duringemergencies, LRP aims to combat food insecurity in a more effective, economical and contained manner.There is a limited amount of research concerning smallholder involvement in small-scale LRP initiatives.This article explores LRP's impact on smallholder farmers participating in a World Food Programme(WFP) procurement project in southwestern Uganda. It concludes that LRP has some benefits, includingproviding a ready market and empowering farmers, but WFP's procurement contract development,payment procedures and pricing mechanisms, and difficulties of ensuring participants' household foodsecurity, present challenges.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.054 · 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