MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2345815474 · doi:10.5539/sar.v5n3p11

Profitability and Institutional Constraints to the Adoption of Fertilizer Microdosing in Northwest Benin

2016· article· en· W2345815474 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erika Bachmann, David Natcher, Suren Kulshreshtha, Mohamed Nasser Baco, P. B. Irénikatché Akponikpè, Derek Peak

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexFood securityBusinessProduction (economics)Government (linguistics)AgricultureMarket liquidityDistribution (mathematics)Agricultural economicsConstraint (computer-aided design)PrioritizationNatural resource economicsAgricultural scienceEconomicsFinanceEnvironmental scienceMicroeconomicsGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>Various agricultural techniques have been developed as components of food security interventions, but their effectiveness in addressing food insecurity in part depends upon the effectiveness of these techniques in fulfilling farmers’ objectives. This paper presents the results of research that examined the constraints that limit the adoption of microdosing by farmers in northwest Benin. The results of farmer field trials indicate that on average, microdosing produced lower yields and proved less profitable than recommended levels. In addition to reduced profitability, numerous institutional constraints were identified that further limit adoption. These constraints include poorly functioning input markets, inefficient distribution systems, limited affordability and credit constraints, liquidity constraints, and government policies that limit cross-border access to inputs as well as the prioritization of fertilizer for cotton production over food crops.</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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.268 · 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

Citations10
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207