MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W289949106 · doi:10.37801/ajad2011.8.2.4

Spatial Distribution of Farm-Family Resources in the Mid-Hills of Nepal

2011· article· en· W289949106 on OpenAlexaff
Gopal Datt Bhatta, Werner Doppler

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Agriculture and Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivelihoodSocioeconomic statusAgricultureGeographyDistribution (mathematics)Resource (disambiguation)Geographic information systemSpatial analysisSocioeconomicsAgricultural economicsEconomic growthBusinessEconomicsCartographyPopulationSociologyDemographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The location of farm households along the spatial gradient affects resource availability and farmers’ livelihoods. Many socioeconomic variables have strong spatial affinity that would otherwise be overlooked by data aggregation at household levels. The Geographic Information System (GIS) displays and analyzes socioeconomic data that could aid many social researchers in understanding socioeconomic reality influenced by geographical positions. This paper aims to integrate socioeconomic data into a GIS environment. It examines spatial tendencies of farm-family resources in the mid-hills of Nepal using spatial and random sampling techniques. Farmers living in relatively flat lands and nearby urban centers have small families, higher level of education, farm and family income. In addition, they have small agricultural holdings and engage in commercial farming. Meanwhile, the opposite applies to farmers living in the hills. These spatial differences are related mainly to road, market, and other infrastructure that are crucial for agricultural development and livelihood enhancement. Strong spatial trend in socioeconomic aspects and farm-family resource availability infer the need to focus development activities spatially.

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)0.001
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 score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of Agriculture and DevelopmentSame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207