Getting genes: Rethinking seed system analysis and reform for sorghum in Ethiopia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crop improvement and seed supply are central activities in agricultural development. Many interventions have sought to involve farmers more closely in crop development and seed supply, to improve the effectiveness of plant science, enhance biodiversity conservation, or empower farmers, with Participatory Plant Breeding' (PPB) being the most recent strategy for reform. However, there is little critical analysis of the existing technical and institutional practices of formal systems, and almost no knowledge at all of farmers' own strategies for accessing and using crop genetic resources. For these reasons, interventions risk being mis-directed. Moreover, without a broad analysis of institutions and policies, interventions may result lead to only temporary change, at best. This research analyses both farmer and formal seed systems for sorghum inEthiopia, identifying the specific challenges they face, set in historical, social, and institutional context. This is rarely done in discussions of reform, and suggests different that different types of interventions are needed than usually promoted by PPB, or other participatory reforms. Using practice and path-dependency as analytical starting points, this thesis explores the history, policies, key decisions, and institutional cultures in formal breeding and seed supply. Farmers own genetic resource management was directly observed in two communities, using both qualitative and quantitative approaches to explore social relations in seed exchange, seed storage and selection, and pathways of innovation. This broad scaled-approach highlighted how biological and social process interact in genetic resource management, particularly around the institutional forces shaping formal seed system practices, and the importance of social relationships in securing access to seed and germplasm in farmer seed systems. Analysing both seed systems together in this inter-disciplinary fashion offers fresh insights into seed system reform, and highlights key challenges, particularly in relation to securing access to seed and information, appropriate scale of work, and institutional barriers to change.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".