MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116993940 · doi:10.1505/ifor.12.3.284

The socio-economic contribution of non-timber forest products to rural livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa: knowledge gaps and new directions

2010· article· en· W2116993940 on OpenAlexaff
Joleen Timko, Patrick O. Waeber, Robert Kozak

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Forestry Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivelihoodGeographyAgroforestryNatural resource economicsTraditional knowledgeSocioeconomicsBusinessEconomic growthEconomicsAgricultureEcologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY The majority of Sub-Saharan Africa's population relies on forest products for subsistence uses, cash income, or both. In the case of non-timber forest products (NTFPs), it is imperative to 1) clearly understand the socio-economic contributions that they make to rural livelihoods in order to 2) design policies, interventions, and business ventures that serve to safeguard forest assets for the poor in a targeted manner. Based on existing literature, this article highlights the quantitative contributions that NTFPs have made to rural household incomes in several forested, Sub-Saharan African countries. Reasons for a paucity of data on this front are discussed. The article then identifies five broad socioeconomic factors (location, wealth status, gender, education, and seasonality) affecting levels of dependency on NTFPs by rural households, and calls for a better understanding of the linkages between these five factors in order for targeted policies on poverty alleviation in forest-dependent communities to be developed.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations139
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Forestry ReviewSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207