MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742918524 · doi:10.1002/ird.2158

Horticultural Production in Burkina Faso: A Comprehensive Socio‐Economic Analysis

2017· article· en· W2742918524 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Safiétou Sanfo, Bruno Barbier, Adolphe Zangré

Bibliographic record

VenueIrrigation and Drainage · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWest African Science Service Centre on Climate Change and Adapted Land Use
KeywordsProduction (economics)MultitudeAgricultureGovernment (linguistics)Quarter (Canadian coin)Agricultural economicsService (business)BusinessAgricultural scienceGeographyAgricultural productivityStatistical analysisEconomic growthEconomicsPolitical scienceMarketingEnvironmental scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study assessed the horticultural sector of Burkina Faso thanks to a national database containing data collected by the agricultural statistical service. A socio‐economic analysis shed light on some of the determinants of production. The data show that the sector is very much undercapitalized with little use of inputs or agricultural equipment. The vast majority of market gardeners use hand tools to produce small quantities of market garden produce. Women account for one quarter of plot managers and most producers are young and illiterate. Production is organized informally. Government support is rare because production is scattered over a multitude of small locations around small reservoirs, rivers and in lowlands. The study calls into question a number of misconceptions and makes some recommendations. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.234

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIrrigation and DrainageSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207