MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563945665 · doi:10.1108/ohi-02-2009-b0002

Tenure and Land Markets for Urban Agriculture

2009· article· en· W2563945665 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Redwood

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen House International · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicUrban Agriculture and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsInternational Development Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivelihoodBusinessLand titlingLand tenureSecurity of tenureOrder (exchange)AgricultureKinshipFood securityValue (mathematics)Natural resource economicsEconomic growthEnvironmental planningGeographyEconomicsFinancePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cities are shaped by many elements, but undoubtedly one of the most significant factors is the urban land market. Urban farmers, often producing food on land with limited or no security of tenure, are exposed to the risk of being evicted in order for land to be used for more profitable uses such as housing development. In the absence of a system of land titling, advocacy groups, or secure tenure, urban farmers are pushed to the margins. It then becomes difficult to support, manage and/or regulate the sector. More importantly, without legal status, most forms of credit are inaccessible to farmers and they must rely on kinship and illicit sources for credit. The influence of land tenure on the security of urban farmers to practice their livelihood is significant. Recent IDRC supported projects suggest that banking systems and economists need to develop a methodology to value lands that are informally controlled by farmers or where there are customary legal systems in place. Moreover, evidence suggests that advocacy groups have manage to increase security and access to land for urban farmers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen House InternationalSame topicUrban Agriculture and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207