MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025594395 · doi:10.5539/jps.v1n1p33

Diversity of NTFPs and Their Utilization in Adilabad District of Andhra Pradesh, India

2012· article· en· W2025594395 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Omkar Kanneboyena, Sateesh Suthari, Samata Alluri, Ajmeera Ragan, Vatsavaya S. Raju

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Plant Studies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsistence agricultureAgroforestryGeographyBambooRaw materialBiodiversityForestryBiologyBotanyEcologyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adilabad in Andhra Pradesh is a backward district, with 37.72% of geographic area under forest cover and inhabited by 17.08% ethnic people who use the local tropical dry deciduous forests to extract Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) for self-consumption and economic subsistence. The analysis of NTFPs in six forest divisions of Adilabad district, viz. Adilabad, Bellampalli, Jannaram, Kagaznagar, Mancherial and Nirmal reveals the use of consumptive category of goods like wild food plants, honey, oils, fodder, etc. on one hand and the non-consumptive items like gums, resins, gum-resins, dyes, wax, lac, fibers, fuel wood, charcoal, fencing material, brooms, wildlife products, raw materials like bamboo and cane for handicrafts, etc. besides the medicinal plants. The NTFP diversity shows the cognitive ability of the people while the products extracted belong to 183 flowering plant species which represent 149 genera of 64 families (164 Magnoliopsida; 19 Liliopsida). The Legumes dominate the list with 31 taxa, followed by Rubiaceae (11) and Euphorbiaceae (7). Most of the NTFP species are phanerophytes (61% trees) and indigenous. The government of Andhra Pradesh has a procurement policy and price index for select NTFPs by which the stakeholders get reasonable seasonal income through the collection and sale of beedi leaf, gums (karaya, thiruman, konda gogu), stem bark (narra mamidi), fleshy corolla (ippa), fruits (karakkaya, kunkudu), seeds (chilla, mushti, morli), etc.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations18
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Plant StudiesSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207