MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783625138 · doi:10.1139/facets-2017-0032

Integrating wood fuels into agriculture and food security agendas and research in sub-Saharan Africa

2018· article· en· W2783625138 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ruth Mendum, Mary Njenga

Bibliographic record

VenueFACETS · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFirewoodFood securitySustainabilityAgricultureBusinessFood insecurityProductivityAgricultural economicsNatural resource economicsEconomic growthGeographyEconomicsEngineeringWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), food security can be influenced by many factors including farmer productivity, access to soil amendments, labor availability, and family incomes (just to name a few). In this paper, we suggest that an additional issue contributes to food insecurity and has been historically absent from the discussion, namely access to cooking energy, particularly for very low income, food insecure individuals. This paper examines the most recent literature that describes the central role played by wood fuels, in particular firewood and charcoal, as a vital, though controversial, source of fuel used by the vast majority of rural and urban sub-Saharan Africans. We explore the reality that although the health risks of collecting and using firewood and charcoal in traditional manners are real, policy makers, researchers, and donors need to address the sustainability and viability of the current fuel types used by the majority of people. We end the paper with a series of practical suggestions for improving the wood fuel systems as they currently exist in the region.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0110.012
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFACETSSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207