MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145925335 · doi:10.4018/jictrda.2011070103

Awareness of ICT-Based Projects and the Intensity of Use of Mobile Phones Among Smallholder Farmers in Uganda

2011· article· en· W2145925335 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stephen Lwasa, Narathius Asingwire, Julius Juma Okello, Joseph Kiwanuka

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of ICT Research and Development in Africa · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsMobile phoneInformation and Communications TechnologyBusinessAgricultureBinomial regressionDistance decayMarketingLogistic regressionGeographyTelecommunicationsEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) is embraced in Uganda, determinants of awareness of ICT based projects remain unknown. The intensity of use of mobile phones among smallholder farmers in the areas where such projects operate is unclear. To address this knowledge gap, 346 smallholder farmers in two ICT project sites in Mayuge and Apac districts were subjected to econometric analysis using bi-variate logistic and zero-inflated negative binomial regression models to ascertain determinants of projects’ awareness and intensity of use of mobile phones. The authors find that education, distance to input markets, and membership in a group positively influence awareness. The decision to use a mobile phone for agricultural purposes is affected by distance to electricity and land cultivated and negatively influenced by being a member of any farmer group. Lastly, intensity of mobile phone use is affected by age, farming as the major occupation, and distance to an internet facility, being a member of a project, having participated in an agricultural project before, value of assets, size of land cultivated, possession of a mobile phone, and proximity to agricultural offices. The paper discusses policy implications of these findings.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ICT Research and Development in AfricaSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207