MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291252638 · doi:10.5539/sar.v5n1p97

Food vs. Wood: Dynamic Choices for Kenyan Smallholders

2016· article· en· W2291252638 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexandra Peralta, Scott M. Swinton

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgroforestrySubsistence agricultureAgricultureSowingCash cropEucalyptusWood productionTree plantingResource (disambiguation)TropicsFood securityAgricultural scienceGeographyAgricultural economicsAgronomyEnvironmental scienceEconomicsForest managementBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Smallholder farmers in many areas of the semiarid tropics are planting exotic tree species that provide alternative income sources, fuel, and building materials. While providing other benefits, these trees often occupy land that could produce annual food crops. This study uses a polyperiod, linear programming model, to explore the opportunity cost of planting <em>Eucalyptus grandis</em> and <em>Grevillea robusta</em> trees compared to crops in the Nyando watershed of western Kenya. Results of the ten-year period wealth maximization model suggest that a representative farmer’s decisions on farm resource allocation are sensitive to changes in the relative prices of short rotation tree products and annual crops. The model also suggests that there are economic tradeoffs between planting trees and crops, as well as between planting different tree species. Timber production is not likely to replace food crops for two main reasons: (1) the high cost of meeting household subsistence requirements from marketed grains, (2) household cash flow needs met by annual crops. Farmers plant eucalyptus for commercial purposes because they can obtain timber products within four years; however if the prices of these short rotation products go down, farmers will prefer to grow timber from high yield grevillea.</p>

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.685

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207