MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2221326441

Determinants Of Productivity Level Of Commercial Grasscutter Farmers In Oyo State

2007· article· en· W2221326441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
AE Adekoya

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Journal of Livestock Extension · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLivestock and Poultry Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityLivestockAgricultural scienceAgricultureQuarter (Canadian coin)Rice farmingDescriptive statisticsSocioeconomicsGeographyProfit (economics)BusinessAgricultural economicsEconomicsEconomic growthForestryMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seventy-five registered grasscutter farmers were purposively sampled among association members and non-members. The data was collected through administration of structured questionnaire and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics to determine relationship among variables. The study revealed that majority of the respondents were males (83.8%), married (78.4%) and had tertiary education (82.6%). Large proportion were Christians (51.4%) and 64.8% were within the age range of 30-50 years. The study however, showed that more than three-quarter (78.4%) obtained more than 1.0 productivity and friends/neighbour (51.4%) and contact farmers (50%) were major sources of information. Home/farm sales (81.8%) was a major marketing channel used by the farmers. The average profit/gain made by respondents was N54,203 while sales of grasscutters was not seasonal but at any time of the year. Credit facilities diseases/pest/parasites and high cost of farming equipment and housing were mentioned constraints. There was significant relationship between farmers' age and their productivity level (r = 0.30, p Keywords : Grasscutter, Productivity, Livestock farming. African Journal of Livestock Extension Vol. 5 2007: pp. 71-75

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 score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Journal of Livestock ExtensionSame topicLivestock and Poultry ManagementFrench-language works237,207