MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2324265064

Shrimp Farmers' Usage and Preference of Extension Communication Media in Selected Areas of Bagherhat District of Bangladesh

2016· article· en· W2324265064 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sanaul Haque

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShrimpDisseminationSchedulePreferenceQuarter (Canadian coin)Shrimp farmingAgricultural scienceIndonesianAgricultureBusinessGeographySocioeconomicsAgricultural economicsEngineeringEconomicsMathematicsBiologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>StatisticsAquaculture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information, now a day, is considered equally valuable as monetary resources. Extension communication media disseminate precious information that can change the life of many rural poor farmers. This study was progressed with the purpose determining shrimp farmers usage and preference of extension communication media (ECM) in some selected villages of Bangladesh. This study was conducted in a selected union of Bagerhat Sadar Upazila in Bangladesh. Data were collected in the first quarter of June, 2015. This research was predominantly based on primary data. However, secondary sources were also consulted to reveal the present status farming, production and marketing of shrimp in Bangladesh. Data were collected using structured interview schedule from 72 purposively selected shrimp farmers. Usage of ECM was determined based on weighted mean; whereas preference of media was determined considering the frequency and percentage. The association between predictor and criterion viable was measured employing

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207