MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160082426 · doi:10.5539/mas.v5n2p239

Jatropha curcas Production in Zimbabwe: Uses, Challenges and the Way Forward

2011· article· en· W2160082426 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charles Karavina, Emmanuel Zivenge, Ronald Mandumbu, Cosmas Parwada

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAfrican Botany and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJatropha curcasJatrophaAgroforestryBusinessProduction (economics)BiodieselBiofuelFertilizerGovernment (linguistics)AgronomyEnvironmental scienceEconomicsBiotechnologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The jatropha plant was introduced to Zimbabwe in 1940. Until recently, jatropha production was mainly done by communal farmers in marginal areas of the country. Being a multipurpose tree, the jatropha plant was being used to produce soap, lubricants and in soil conservation. Due to the fuel crisis that gripped Zimbabwe over the last decade, there has been a move towards producing biodiesel to complement imported fossil fuel. There is potential to produce animal and plant protectants, and organic fertilizer from jatropha. The current utilization of the plant is limited by lack of a clear government policy, unfavorable selling prices and unavailable agronomic information. There is need for government to come up with a policy that encourages production, research and utilization of biofuels. Information on jatropha propagation should be made available, not only in English, but vernacular languages also. Research should be encouraged so that varieties that are higher yielding are produced.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicAfrican Botany and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207