Profitability of Cowpea Intercropped With Maize in West Africa Guinea Savanna
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An on-farm trial was conducted over a 2-year period in Tibali in the Savelugu district of Northern region of Ghana to evaluate the productivity and economic returns of hybrid and open pollinated maize (OPV) either in pure stands or intercropped with erect and trailing cowpea. The maize varieties used were medium maturing (110 days) whie the cowpea varieties were early maturiing (70 days). The experiment was conducted in a randomized complete block design with 14 treatments (sole pan53, sole Etubi, sole mamaba, sole obatampa, sole erect cowpea, sole trailing cowpea, erect cowpea + pan53, erect cowpea+etubi, erect cowpea+mamaba, erect cowpea+obatampa, traing cowpea + pan53, traling cowpea+etubi, trailing cowpea+mamaba and trailing cowpea + obatampa) replicated on 10 farms. Intercropping had better productivity and economic returns than sole cropping. Intercropping maize with trailing cowpea type had better productivity and economic return than intercropping with erect type of cowpea. Intercropping the OPV maize with cowpea had better productivity and economic return than intercropping hybrid maize with cowpea. Farmers may either intercrop OPV maize with trailing cowpea type or hybrid maize variety Pan 53 maize with trailing cowpea type for better productivity and economic return.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".