MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2555938770 · doi:10.1108/eemcs-03-2016-0025

Last mile farm inputs: farm shop delivers

2016· article· en· W2555938770 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerald Emerging Markets Case Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarketingBusinessTurnkeyQuality (philosophy)Profit (economics)ProductivityEntrepreneurshipEconomicsFinanceEconomic growthEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subject area The subject areas are social entrepreneurship and marketing in social enterprises. Study level/applicability This study is applicable to undergraduate or MBA-level courses; possibly executive programs as well. Case overview Farm Shop was established in 2012 as a not-for-profit trust, with an aim of developing a distribution platform for poor, rural communities across sub-Saharan Africa so that smallholder farmers could get the farm inputs and services needed to increase their productivity and income. Attempting to reach scale, this social enterprise is in the process of building a micro-franchise network. Unlike franchises in industrialized countries where the franchisor starts with a vetted and replicable turnkey business, Farm Shop was created from scratch. After prototyping the shop concept and validating the business model in Kiambu County of Kenya, Farm Shop has 10 fully operational shops and is keen to start its growth phase, aiming to have 120 shops in its network within the next 12-18 months. It is only at that point that break-even will be achieved. Recognizing the key role of marketing in Farm Shop’s growth efforts, the founders are now focused on finalizing their go-to-market (GTM) strategy. Having initiated and measured the results of a number of marketing activities over the past six months, it is now time to decide which of these activities should be incorporated into their micro-franchise system. The management team knows that to provide advice, training and quality products to farmers, they first needed to develop awareness, interest and desire for what Farm Shop has to offer, not to mention the need to gain the farmers’ trust. Fundamentally, farmers needed to be convinced that Farm Shop can help them improve their productivity and income. Expected learning outcomes The study enables to gain an overall understanding of the range of challenges and opportunities associated with establishing a micro-franchise in an emerging market context; to gain a better understanding of social marketing, including the four types of behavioral influence it attempts to achieve and the similarities and differences between social and commercial marketing; to introduce the “theory of change” concept, providing a framework for understanding how and why change will occur; to introduce the concept of business models and explore the differences between “traditional” and “social entrepreneurship” business models; to understand how a competitive advantage is created; to introduce basic marketing concepts and the GTM concept and its role and application in a business model for a new social enterprise and to understand how marketing contributes to the social enterprise’s strategic goals and sustainability, thereby gaining an understanding of how “social marketing” is differentiated from commercial marketing. Supplementary materials Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes. Subject code CSS 3: Entrepreneurship.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.233 · 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