MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139217711 · doi:10.5539/jas.v4n1p233

Agricultural Researchers’ Awareness of the Causes and Effects of Climate Change in Edo State, Nigeria

2011· article· en· W2139217711 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tajudeen Oyekunle Amoo Banmeke, Olugbenga Emmanuel Fakoya, Ibrahim Folorunsho Ayanda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicOil, Gas, and Environmental Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeAgricultureDescriptive statisticsSocioeconomicsSpillagePsychologyGeographySociologyEngineeringStatisticsMathematicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study assessed Agricultural researchers’ awareness of the causes and effects of climate change in Edo State, Nigeria. Data for the study were collected from 112 respondents and were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings indicated that 45.5% of the respondents were between the ages of 31-50 years with 64.2% having a work experience of 5-10 years. Results revealed that 96.4% and 94.6% of the respondents were aware of gas flaring and oil spillage as causes of climate change. Also, 98.2% and 95.5% of the respondents were aware of increase in temperature and change in rainfall pattern respectively as some of the effects of climate change. There was a significant relationship between information sources and awareness of causes of climate change (r = 0.32; p < 0.05). It was recommended that agricultural researcher should be pragmatic and proactive in the pursuit of issues relating to climate 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicOil, Gas, and Environmental IssuesFrench-language works237,207