Conservation Agriculture Promotion and Uptake in Mufulira, Zambia-A Political Agronomy Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study utilized 120 semi-structured interviews with smallholder farming households and two focus group discussions; as well as several key informant interviews with experts to explore the promotion and uptake of conservation agriculture (CA) in Mufulira, Zambia. Results reveal that ridges and flat culture continued to be the preferred tillage systems (97 per cent and 55 per cent respectively) despite the farmers having been trained in the use of a minimum tillage technique. None of the interviewed farmers perceived CA as a solution to any of their agricultural related problems. The NGO promoting CA in the district had framed it as suited for and claimed to target labour constrained HIV/AIDS affected households. Conversely, farmers complained that CA was challenging for them due to its high labour demands (23 per cent); poor harvests (18 per cent) and was unsuited to the rainfall patterns of the area (10 per cent). Local agricultural experts contested the promotion of basins in Mufulira. The framing of CA as a solution to labour constraints did not seem to hold in the study area. This effectively limited the contestation spaces available to the public officials with dissenting views on the suitability of basin CA in the district.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".