MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110053258 · doi:10.5539/jas.v6n4p135

Constraints and Challenges Facing the Small Scale Farmers in Limpopo Province, South Africa

2014· article· en· W2110053258 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sylvester Mpandeli, Phokele Maponya

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstraint (computer-aided design)Scale (ratio)AgricultureBusinessMarket accessIrrigationEnvironmental planningGeographyAgricultural economicsNatural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Macro- and micro-structural constraints, including those linked to and exacerbated by historical, natural and financial factors are some of the many stressors facing small-scale farmers in Limpopo Province. The challenge is to co-design ways to effectively manage these constraints with development actions. Small scale farmers in South Africa are still facing major challenges in the agricultural sector. In this paper some of the challenges faced by small-scale farmers in the Limpopo Province have been identified. Some of the challenges found during the formal surveys and focus group meetings in the Tshakhuma, Rabali and Tshiombo areas were those linked to financial, assets, land ownership and biophysical factors. Specific constraints included: (a) Market information and market access; (b) Price of inputs, for example fertilizer and herbicides; (c) Availability of inputs; (d) Irrigation; (e) Cost of transport, and Natural constraint.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations85
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207