MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032498930 · doi:10.5539/jas.v2n3p248

An Evaluation of Farmers’ Participation in Afforestation Programme in Kogi State, Nigeria

2010· article· en· W2032498930 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
O. J. Saliu, J. S. Alao, Tobiloba E. Oluwagbemi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican Education and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAfforestationHectareReforestationDescriptive statisticsLivelihoodAgricultureBusinessAgricultural economicsLand degradationSocioeconomicsAgricultural scienceGeographyForestryEconomicsMathematicsStatisticsEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive deforestation has reduced the 65 million hectares of intact forest cover of 1897 in Nigeria to thepresent 4 million hectares. The consequences of this unhealthy development have resulted to environmentaldegradation and accelerated wind and water erosion of the fertile land that has also left Nigerian soil too poor forsustainable agricultural production. Reforestation through small-scale village based farmers’ participation nowform one of the strategies embarked upon by several agencies in Nigeria including Kogi afforestation project.This study attempts to evaluate farmers’ participation in afforestation project in Kogi State. Structuredquestionnaire was used to interview 120 participants. Descriptive statistics, adoption index and sigma methodwere used to describe socio-economic characteristics, participation methods and to measure the level of adoptionwhile chi-square was used to find differences between income generated from adoption of the variousafforestation technologies. Findings reveal that 67 percent of the farmers had little or no formal education, morethan 30 percent of the farmers underwent passive participation in afforestation while adoption of improvedseedlings, exotic trees and pure stand technologies received high score of 4.90, 4.74 and 4.44 respectively. Seedscarification and harvesting by chipping technologies received the least adoption score of 2.61 and 2.94. Thechi-square test adjudged that there was a significant difference between income generated and type of technologyadopted. This study recommends that more pragmatic interactive participation method that will give room forjoint analysis of action plan and formation of local institutions should be put in place.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAfrican Education and PoliticsFrench-language works237,207