Evaluation Indicators and Development Strategies of Agricultural Revitalization for Rural Rejuvenation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of rural rejuvenation is to establish newly regenerated rural villages via economic development and beautification. However, it is necessary to engage agriculture in rural areas as a basis to reach the goal. In order to effectively promote agricultural development, the objective of this study is to develop the related indicators as evaluation criteria. A modified Delphi method is applied to develop the questionnaire. The indicators are divided into two categories: requirement and implementation evaluation indicators. This implies indicators in both sides should be considered simultaneously for effectively promoting agricultural development. There are four dimensions, consisting of twelve items, which are included in requirement indicators. The four dimensions are to (1) activate agricultural production (2) to promote agricultural marketing (3) to construct the distinguishing features of rural life and culture, and(4) to develop leisure agriculture and rural village experiences. The implementation indicators are comprised of five dimensions including 21 items. The five dimensions are (1) community factors (2) human resource factors (3) local resource surveys (4) environmental and facilities planning, and (5) government subsidies and guidance. To determine the relative importance sequence of the target evaluation indicators, the fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) is applied to calculate the weight for each item. Then, the quality function development method (QFD) is adopted to explore the relative importance sequence of implementing indicators. Based upon the important items of evaluation indicators, this study proposes the development strategies recommended for the agricultural authority.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it