MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985980295 · doi:10.1080/21665095.2014.988361

Contextual influences on the sustainability of prospective livelihood diversification initiatives in farm villages in the Karnataka semiarid dryland region of India

2014· article· en· W1985980295 on OpenAlexaff
Brenda K. Wilson, Javier Mignone, A. John Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment Studies Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivelihoodDiversification (marketing strategy)SustainabilityNonfarm payrollsContext (archaeology)BusinessGeographySocioeconomicsNatural resource economicsAgricultureEconomic growthEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsMarketingEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our study examined current livelihood strategies among dryland villagers in Karnataka, India, and evaluated prospective farm and nonfarm diversification strategies for sustainable livelihood outcomes. Using a sustainable livelihoods framework, data were collected using interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires to identify contextual influences on prospective livelihood diversification initiatives in the region. This paper situates diversification within the broader context of rural India while identifying wider influences to present a number of recommendations on livelihood diversification initiatives. We argue that decision-makers in diversification initiatives must gain an understanding of the complexities, influences, and capacities at local and broader levels to promote sustainable interventions.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment Studies ResearchSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207