MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108584967 · doi:10.5539/sar.v1n2p27

Factors Influencing Adoption and Area under Conservation Agriculture: A Mixed Methods Approach

2012· article· en· W2108584967 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Progress H. Nyanga

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureBusinessPromotion (chess)IncentiveAgricultural scienceConservation agricultureMarketingSample (material)Agricultural economicsEconomicsGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adoption of conservation agriculture (CA) is quite low in most parts of Africa. However, Zambia has been quite successful in increasing adoption of CA among smallholder farmers. Few studies using both quantitative and qualitative approaches have been conducted in Zambia to determine factors influencing adoption of CA. This study uses mixed methods approach to document factors influencing adoption of CA among smallholder farmers under the Conservation Agriculture Project (CAP) in Zambia. From a random sample of 415 smallholder farmers, results showed that 71% had adopted CA. Quantitative analysis indicated that CA trainings, previous experience in minimum tillage, membership in farmer organisations, and ownership of CA tillage equipment significantly increased the likelihood of CA adoption. Number of CA trainings attended, farm size, number of rippers owned and use of herbicide had a significant positive influence on area under CA. Qualitative approaches showed that good rapport with farmers, trust, reciprocity and altruism, monitoring and evaluations, extension strategy, quality and extent of technical knowledge in CA within CFU, and artificial incentives positively influenced adoption of CA. Traditional leadership was reported to enhance adoption of CA in most cases. Prestige was reported to withhold some men from adopting CA basins. Women were very involved in CA basins while men were mostly involved in ADP ripping. Some worldviews of farmers had negative influence on adoption of CA. Donor support and collaboration with the Zambia National Farmers Union and private sector were other contextual factors for the high adoption of CA among sampled smallholder farmers. In the promotion of CA it is important to pay attention to both quantitative and qualitative factors influencing adoption. A mixed methods approach thus can lead to a better understanding of the adoption of CA than a single research strategy approach.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.155

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations81
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207