MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994908378 · doi:10.5539/jas.v3n2p262

A Survey of Mechanization Problems of the Small Scale (Peasant) Farmers in the Middle Belt of Nigeria

2011· article· en· W1994908378 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan Kuje Yohanna, Ango Usman Fulani, Williams Aka’ama

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanizationPeasantAgricultural economicsAgricultureHectareProduction (economics)BusinessScale (ratio)SubsidyAgricultural machineryAgricultural scienceTillageGeographyEconomicsEnvironmental scienceAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food shortage problem is increasing every day among the developing nations. So many farmers are on the land on small scale basis and their production has not been enough. Their farm sizes have not increased over the years due to absence of the relevant mechanization machinery. This study was made to evaluate the level of solutions of the problems of small farm mechanization, which is the only viable means of food production in the developing nations such as Nigeria. From the studies, the various levels of mechanization tools in the various farm operations are as follows: land clearing 21.54%, tillage 24.62%, planting 3.85%, spraying 86.15%, fertilization 2.13%, weeding 3.08%, harvesting 40%, crop processing 7.69% and crop storage 0.00%. Most of the farm sizes (93.85%) range from 1-5 hectares. The mechanization process being emphasized in the country is still beyond the scope of the small scale farmers who produce the bulk of the food. It is recommended among other things that government should set up agricultural machinery industries which should developed or purchase and hired out to small scale farmers at subsidized rates to increase the level of mechanization of certain farm operations in the middle belt states of the country.

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)0.002
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 score0.770
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.161 · 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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207