MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895214054 · doi:10.20431/2349-0381.0508005

Perception of Dew by Cereal Growers in Semi-Arid Climate (Guéné, North Benin)

2018· article· en· W2895214054 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gabin Koto N’Gobi, Basile Kounouhéwa, Clément Kouchade, Romuald Anago, D. Beysens

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research CentreStockholm Environment Institute
KeywordsDewAridPerceptionGeographySemi-arid climateAgroforestryAgronomyEnvironmental scienceAgricultural economicsMeteorologyPsychologyEcologyBiologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

West Africa is one of the regions the more impacted by climate change, concerning in particular droughts and lack of fresh water. In this context was carried out a study of the sociological perception of dew as alternate source of water by cereal's growers in Gun (semi-arid region, north Benin). Ten data collectors were formed to fill out questionnaires, addressed to 100 cultivators in 2014. Data analysis takes into account respondents' gender, their ages and the type of cereal they cultivate. Close to 80% of the growers experienced dew assistance when sowing cereals. During rain shortage, 44% of the farmers rely on dew occurrence to compensate for lack of rain water. Among farmers, 80% account for dew before and during cereals growth. For 99% of growers, dew plays an important role for cereal growth, as stated in scientific literature. However, 17% point out a possible negative role of dew, favoring dissemination of plant diseases. Farmers (87%) are open to any technology capable of collecting enough dew water for agriculture, but they remain skeptical about such discoveries. Responses only slightly vary when considering the gender and the ages of the farmers but they vary strongly when considering the type of cereal.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and EducationSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207