Quality of Extension Services: A Case Study of Farmers in Amathole
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The trend in the contemporary society for accountability calls for the evaluation of extension services. Extension service providers should be saddled with the responsibility of ensuring that farmers are continually satisfied with services being delivered. In enhancing farmers’ loyalty and confidence, extension feedback is becoming increasingly paramount. Customer satisfaction survey remains an essential tool for measuring the quality of services and outcome of programmes. The purpose of the study was to determine the quality related to innovation dissemination and teaching as perceived by farmers inthe adoption of new agricultural technologiesin Amathole District Municipality. Thespecific objectives of the study were to: describe how assessments of quality of Extension services differ by gender and the outcomes of the experiences with Extension services. Amathole district Municipality was used as the study population. The entire survey was carried out using a continuous sequence of contacts. A total of 900 useable surveys were pooled for the study. Farmers’ gender was found to be linked with Extension service satisfaction and outcomes. However, females appear to have overall satisfaction with service delivery than males. The implication of this is that males are less likely to cultivate confidence and loyalty in extension services in Amathole district. Following these findings, concerted effort is required to improve extension services in the area by integrating more holistic participatory approaches to enhance equal involvement of male and female farmers in needs assessment, programme planning, designing, delivery and the full recognition of indigenous knowledge system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".