MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133671340 · doi:10.5539/sar.v2n3p136

Options for Operation and Maintenance Partnerships - A Case Study of Rupike Irrigation Scheme, Zimbabwe

2013· article· en· W2133671340 on OpenAlex
E.J. Mwendera, Pius Chilonda, Patrick Chigura

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicPublic-Private Partnership Projects
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirektion für Entwicklung und Zusammenarbeit
KeywordsGeneral partnershipIrrigationSustainabilityPublic–private partnershipBusinessAgricultural scienceEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental scienceFinanceEconomicsAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Adequate operation and maintenance (O&M) of irrigation infrastructure sustains irrigation scheme facilities, reduces repair costs, helps the system last longer, and keeps irrigation efficiency at design levels. In cases where farmers do not have sufficient capacity to operate and maintain the irrigation infrastructure sustainably, it is necessary for the farmers to enter into partnerships with external entities. The paper presents assessment of partnerships required for small-scale farmers at Rupike Irrigation scheme, in Masvingo, Zimbabwe, to operate and maintain their irrigation infrastructure sustainably. The O&M domain in the irrigation scheme consisted of five components of water acquisition (WA), water transmission (WT), water pumping (WP), water distribution (WD) and field water application (WAP). Group discussions of the farmers were held to obtain farmers’ input in the identification of components and activities for which partnerships were required. It was proposed that the scheme requires public-community partnership (P<sub>U</sub>CP) to operate and maintain the dam, public-private-community partnership (P<sub>U</sub>P<sub>VT</sub>CP) to operate and maintain the pump house, private-community partnership (P<sub>VT</sub>CP) to operate and maintain the transmission and mainline and field distribution pipelines, and public-community partnership (P<sub>U</sub>CP) to operate and maintain field application and crop production systems. It was also proposed that each partnership be formalised through contractual arrangements. It was recommended that the farmers improve funding for O&M through increased contributions as well as through partnerships with the private sector. It was also recommended that, for effective partnerships in irrigation schemes, it is important to analyse the scheme components and identify where and how such partnerships are needed for sustainable O&M of scheme infrastructure.</p>

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.242 · 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