MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014041542 · doi:10.5539/sar.v2n1p1

Productivity of Timber Processing in Ondo State, Nigeria

2012· article· en· W2014041542 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adegboyega Oguntade, Temitope Fatunmbi, J.A. Folayan

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicForest Biomass Utilization and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData envelopment analysisProductivityScale (ratio)TruckAgricultural scienceMillAgricultural economicsOperations managementRemunerationElectricityBusinessVariable costReturns to scaleInvestment (military)EconomicsProduction (economics)Environmental scienceMathematicsStatisticsEngineeringFinanceMicroeconomicsEconomic growthAutomotive engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This study is aimed at evaluating the efficiency of timber processors in Ondo State, Nigeria, using Data Envelopment Analysis. Multi stage sampling technique was used to select two Local Government Areas with the highest number of sawmills, from each of which twenty saw millers were randomly selected, given a total of forty saw millers. Based on Constant Return to Scale Technical Efficiency, 35% of the saw millers were technically efficient while on the basis of Variable Return to Scale TE, 60% of the saw millers were technically efficient. About 35% of the saw millers were scale efficient. The Data Envelopment Analysis output revealed that 35% of the sampled saw millers were both technically and scale efficient and were hence operating at the most productive scale size. About 65% of the saw millers were operating at sub-optimal condition. Excesses in input utilization were observed in respect of total fixed cost, costs of electricity, servicing of mill, timber from forest reserve and operation of truck; and remuneration of labour. The inefficient firms should be encouraged to emulate the operating practices of the most productive firms so as to improve their performance.</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)0.001
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 score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.307

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicForest Biomass Utilization and ManagementFrench-language works237,207