MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317653089 · doi:10.5558/tfc2012-102

Seeing the trees: Farmer perceptions of indigenous forest trees within the cultivated cocoa landscape

2012· article· en· W2317653089 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jane E. Atkins, Ivan Eastin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCocoa and Sweet Potato Agronomy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgroforestryGeographyStakeholderForest ecologyAgricultureForest managementLoggingForest inventoryIndigenousEnvironmental resource managementForestryEcosystemEcologyPolitical scienceBiologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Throughout Ghana’s high forest zone, cocoa farmers clear secondary or primary forest to establish new farms, capturing the capacity of nutrient-rich forest soils to increase cocoa yields. However, many cocoa farmers preserve remnant forest trees on existing farms as an integral and necessary component of the production landscape, making decisions about tree removal and tree retention based on a unique set of selection criteria. How they perceive trees plays a crucial role in daily management decisions made at the micro level, which in turn influence landscape patterns on the macro level. The central question of this research relates to how Ghanaian farmers perceive forest trees within the cultivated cocoa landscape. The research data were collected using an exploratory case study approach that combined ethnographic and survey techniques, and draws on 34 farmer interviews, 34 farm surveys, and interviews with key informants representing diverse stakeholder interests in the Domeabra Traditional Lands, Ashanti-Akim in south central Ghana. The research data were analyzed to identify the important functions of forest trees as perceived by study participants, both as a biophysical component within the farm ecosystem and as an input to the rural economy.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations8
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicCocoa and Sweet Potato AgronomyFrench-language works237,207