A baseline study using Plantwise information to assess the contribution of extension services to the uptake of augmentative biological control in selected low- to lower- middle- income countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uptake of augmentative biological control agents (BCAs) is still limited, particularly in many low- to lower- middle- income countries. This study focuses on factors that affect the uptake of BCAs for arthropod pests by national extension partners (NEPs) in Plantwise—an agricultural development programme facilitating the establishment of plant clinics where farmers can obtain diagnosis and plant health advice. Using data generated by NEPs, BCA recommendations in extension material and given by extension workers in Ghana, Kenya, Zambia, India, Nepal and Pakistan were analysed. The rate of BCA recommendation ranged from 13.0 (Zambia) to 61.1% (India) in extension materials and from 0.0 (Zambia) to 18.2% (India) in recommendations given by extension workers. Knowledge, availability and price were identified as the main factors affecting the uptake of BCAs by NEPs. This baseline study gives novel insight into the potential of NEPs to facilitate the use of BCAs.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".