Traditional agriculture in transition: examining the impacts of agricultural modernization on smallholder farming in Ghana under the new Green Revolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following the renewed effort at achieving a new green revolution for Africa, emphasis has been placed on modernizing smallholder agriculture through the deployment of improved inputs especially mechanized technologies. In Ghana, the government has in the last decade emphasized the provision of subsidized mechanized ploughing services to farmers alongside a rapidly growing private sector tractor service market. While mechanized technology adoption rates have increased rapidly, the deployment of these technologies has been without critical analysis of the impacts on production patterns and local agrarian systems. This paper examines the distributional impacts of agriculture mechanization on cropping patterns and farm sizes of smallholder farmers in northern Ghana using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) techniques, and semi-structured interviews with smallholder farmers (n=60). Specifically, comparative analysis of the field sizes and cropping patterns of participant farmers prior to and after the adoption of mechanized technologies was conducted. In-depth interviews were used to contextualize the experiences of smallholder farmers toward understanding how mechanization may be impacting traditional agriculture. Our findings reveal a mechanization paradox in which farm sizes are expanding, while cropping patterns are shifting away from traditional staple crops (pearl millet and sorghum bicolor) to market-oriented crops (maize, rice and groundnuts). This transition we argue, has adverse implications on the cultural dimension of food security, the organization of social life, and climate change adaptation. We recommend a retooling of the current agricultural policy focus to ensure context sensitivity for a more robust battle against food insecurity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".