Debated agronomy: public discourse and the future of biotechnology policy in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the highly contested and ongoing biotechnology (Bt) policy-making process in Ghana. We analyse media content on how Bt is viewed in the context of Ghana's parliamentary debate on the Plant Breeders Bill and within the broader public policy-making literature. This paper does not seek to take a position on Bt or the Bill, but to understand how policy actors influence the debate with political and scientific rhetoric in Ghana. The study reveals that in the midst of scientific uncertainties of Bt's potential for sustainable agriculture production and food security, policy decisions that encourage its future adoption are heavily influenced by health, scientific, economic, environmental and political factors dictated by different ideologies, values and norms. While locally pioneered plant breeding is visible and common in the Ghanaian food chain, plant breeding/GMOs/Bt from international corporations is strongly resisted by anti-GMO coalitions. Understanding the complex and messy nature of Bt policy-making is critical for future development of agricultural technology in Ghana and elsewhere.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".