MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2764026783 · doi:10.5539/sar.v6n4p117

Drivers of Labour Productivity in Flower Farms in Naivasha, Kenya

2017· article· en· W2764026783 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. I. Mose

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKenyaProductivityGovernment (linguistics)Stratified samplingWageBusinessCompetition (biology)Descriptive statisticsLabour economicsAgricultural economicsEconomicsEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although Kenya is the most successful producer and exporter of fresh produce and flowers in sub-Saharan Africa, other countries both in Africa and elsewhere, offer strong competition that could erode export market share in future. Increased labor productivity is crucial for Kenya’s competitiveness. This study aimed at examining the key drivers of labour productivity in flower farms in Naivasha, Kenya. Descriptive survey design was employed and stratified proportionate random sampling technique used to select 381 respondents from who data was collected using a questionnaire. A log-linearized Cobb-Douglas model was used examine determinants of labour productivity. The results showed that workers’ participation in Labor unions, Information & Communication Technology and workers’ skills acquired through training were the major factors that determined labour productivity by 35.4 percent, 19 percent and 14.7 percent respectively. While worker’s wage increase and tools used by a worker influenced labour productivity by 9 percent and 11.4 percent respectively. Worker’s level of education and worker’s experience also increased labour productivity by 5.1 percent and 4 percent respectively. The study recommends that; the Kenyan government should give special attention to education to produce skilled and innovative workers. Flower Farms should invest more in training of workers to acquire relevant skills, acquisition of appropriate tools; improve ICT infrastructure and support labor union in the flower farms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, 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 venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207