MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159939465 · doi:10.5539/jas.v6n2p1

Shrimp Poly-Culture Development and Local Livelihoods in Tam Giang-Cau Hai Lagoon, Vietnam

2014· article· en· W2159939465 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mitsuyasu Yabe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan International Cooperation Agency
KeywordsTobit modelShrimpStockingAllocative efficiencyData envelopment analysisHectareFisheryAgricultural sciencePolycultureInefficiencyAquacultureBiologyEcologyMathematicsEconomicsStatisticsFish <Actinopterygii>Agriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research was conducted to evaluate the efficiency level of shrimp poly-culture farms by using Data Envelopment Analysis. It also identified factors affecting the inefficiencies of shrimp poly-culture farms using Tobit regression model. The empirical results indicated that the mean of Technical, Allocative and Economic Efficiency were at 84.01%, 64.16%, 55.32%, respectively, hence there is a substantial room for improving the efficiency. DEA results recommended that inefficient farms need to minimize overfeeding of stocks in order to avoid the accumulation of uneaten feeds that further contributes to water pollution. The optimal stocking density ratio should be 8.15 for shrimps, 1.59 for crabs and 2.46 for fish per square meter of pond. The results also showed the presence of scale inefficiency. Smaller farms tend to be more efficient than larger farms. The optimal farm size should be less than 0.5 hectares. The results of Tobit regression model suggested that farm personal characteristics, farm ability to access to institutions, and water environment have significant effect on the efficiency of farms.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207