MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258229462

Indian Rural Entrepreneurship and Industrial Development in Tribal Belt With special reference to Bastar District of Chhattisgarh

2014· article· en· W2258229462 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Syed Saleem Aquil, Dongare Shivprasad Vaijnath

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyQuarter (Canadian coin)SocioeconomicsAgriculturePopulationRural areaForestryArchaeologyDemographyPolitical scienceSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Villages in India have spending power, but they also have some unique problems. What this combination has done is to stoke entrepreneurship among professionals aiming to offer solutions and tap into the rural opportunity. Tweaking technology is also making it possible for startups to offer new applications that suit rural consumers. It is the scale of the opportunity that is drawing scores of entrepreneurs to rural India. Bastar, the tribal district, before splitting into three districts, was one of the largest district in India, with an area of 39114 sq k.m, which was even greater than the Kerala state and some other countries like Belgium, Israel etc. In the year 1999, the district Bastar has been divided into 3 districts namely Bastar, Kanker and Dantewada. All these 3 districts come under Bastar Division with the divisional head quarter at Jagdalpur, which is the district head quarter of Bastar district. The beauty of Bastar district lies in its natural forest area and various types of tribals. The total forest area is 7112 sq k.m which is more than 75% of the total area of the district of the total population more than 70% are tribals like Gonds, Abhuj Maria, Darda Maria, Bison Horn Maria, Munia Doria, Dhruva, Bhatra, Halba etc.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.940
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of ManagementSame topicAgricultural Economics and PracticesFrench-language works237,207