Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interest in indigenous veld plants across Southern Africa is generating speculation on the potential market value of veld plant products. Researchers and entrepreneurs in Botswana have begun to explore the botanical resources of the Kalahari veld lands. These developments are attractive to the government of Botswana given national goals of rural development and economic diversification. Attention is turning to possible ways to increase supply, as wild gathering is unreliable and appears to be depleting wild stocks. In particular, domestication and cultivation are being considered. Indigenous plants may be able to avoid some technical constraints on agricultural development in Botswana. However, as explored in this interdisciplinary paper, there are several complications for potential cultivation in the Kalahari. The delicate ecosystem, issues of land access and commercialization, interplay with livestock, social effects of cash income and other changes, and concerns over market development and fair trade are issues that could seriously affect cultivation plans and yet are often overlooked in agrodevelopment studies. It is summarized that methods of management that better fit the natural and social context, such as communally managed gathering, should instead be considered when addressing the problem of overexploitation of wild veld plants.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".