Gender and Transaction Costs in Crush-Pen Spraying for Trypanosomiasis Control in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trypanosomiasis a widespread constraint in livestock production, mixed farming and human health in Africa has necessitated development of several technologies to ameliorate the effects of the disease. However delivery of these technologies to farmers has been undertaken on trial and error basis without a proper strategy leading to more failure than success and wastage of scarce resources. The purpose of this paper was to carry out an analysis of transaction costs associated with the use of communal crushpen in tsetse fly and trypanosomiasis control among smallholder cattle farms in Busia County, Kenya. The study utilized cross-sectional survey design and was guided by the New Institutional Economics approach. Stratified and simple random sampling technique was adopted to get 211 respondents. Data was collected by use of structured questionnaires and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Conjoint results showed that price was the most important factor influencing the farmers’ decision for crushpen use, accounting for 55.58%; distance accounted for 20.7% while trust accounted for 14.6% and group affiliation 8.7%. It is recommended that crush pens should be close to farms, managed by trustworthy people preferably belonging to farmers’ groups and charges levied for spraying the cows should be within the reach of farmers. The necessity of developing affordable Tsetse fly and Trypanosomiasis control methods in the war against Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis is supported by this study.
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 | 0.000 | 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".