MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110733287 · doi:10.5539/jas.v6n2p189

Characterisation of Smallholder Irrigation Schemes in Chirumanzu District, Zimbabwe

2014· article· en· W2110733287 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Norman Mupaso, Charles Nyamutowa, Stein Masunda, Nyasha Chipunza, Douglas Mugabe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationHectareDescriptive statisticsDrip irrigationProductivityAgricultural scienceGeographySurface irrigationAgricultureMathematicsAgricultural economicsEnvironmental scienceStatisticsAgronomyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study was conducted in 2011 at Hamamavhaire and Mhende irrigation schemes in Chirumanzu district in Zimbabwe to determine the typology of the farmers using different irrigation technologies. A structured household survey was carried out on a sample of 79 respondents drawn from farmers using the sprinkler (n=32), flood (n=39) and drip (n=8) irrigation systems. The information gathered was analysed and interpreted using descriptive statistics and inferential statistics in the form of the chi-square test and Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The main findings showed that there are significant differences (P < 0.05) in yield per hectare (for green maize, maize-grain, wheat and sugar-beans) across the three irrigation systems. Farmers using sprinkler irrigation were found to be better-off in terms of livestock ownership and household assets compared to those using drip and flood irrigation. The study recommended that there is need to provide agricultural training to farmers in irrigation schemes to enhance their productivity.

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)0.002
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAfrican studies and sociopolitical issuesFrench-language works237,207