MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002244671 · doi:10.1177/0266666907078681

The Application of GIS as an Assessment and Planning Tool for Smallholder Irrigation Market Development: a case study from the West African Sahel

2007· article· en· W2002244671 on OpenAlexfundno aff
John Magistro, André Bassolé, Elizabeth Weight

Bibliographic record

VenueInformation Development · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreWorld Bank Group
KeywordsPovertyBusinessEnvironmental planningScale (ratio)IrrigationMarket accessGeographic information systemAgricultureGeographyEconomic growthEnvironmental resource managementAgricultural economicsEconomicsRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article outlines a regional-scale assessment methodology using geographic information systems (GIS) as a source of value-added information to identify and prioritize areas within Africa where an irrigation and market-based poverty alleviation model could potentially be applied to benefit poor, small-scale farmers. This assessment methodology, Poverty Reduction through Irrigation and Smallholder Markets (PRISM), is being piloted by a US-based private voluntary organization to assist development organizations to better target and identify smallholder communities for pro-poor market-led interventions that will ultimately boost farm income and move large numbers of the rural poor out of poverty. The Sahel region of West Africa is presented as a case study for the piloting of a GIS scoping methodology.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.289
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInformation DevelopmentSame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207