The State of Knowledge on Food Security in Ethiopia: Knowledge Production Trends and Publication Accessibility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Decision makers require a strong research foundation in order to make evidencebased decisions. In Ethiopia, there is an apparent contradiction regarding the availability of research and evidence. Google Scholar suggests there is a vast amount of research on food security in Ethiopia, while the Web of Science finds a small fraction in comparison. We analyzed these two research search platforms by comparing and contrasting the search results for the period of 2005 to 2016. The results are also analyzed in terms of knowledge production trends and knowledge accessibility. The findings present an analysis of the publishers, citations, the types of documents included in the search results, institutions of authors, and the role of false positives in the results. Of note, the citation analysis suggested that there are distinct circles of knowledge exchange and publication, principally revolving around the accessibility of research. In addition to outlining the landscape food security research in Ethiopia, this study has implications for systematic reviews, specifying the strengths and limitations of the respective databases as well as highlights areas for future inquiry, such as barriers to publication and the categorization of journals. Keywords: Ethiopia; food security; state of knowledge; review ----------------------------------------------------------- L'Etat des Connaissances sur la Securite Alimentaire en Ethiopie: Les Tendances de la Production de Savoir et l'Accessibilite de la Publication. Resume Les dirigeants ont besoin d'une solide fondation de recherche afin de pouvoir prendre des decisions fondees. En Ethiopie, il y a une contradiction visible concernant la disponibilite de la recherche et d'evidence. Google Scholar suggere qu'il y a une vaste quantite de recherches sur la securite alimentaire en Ethiopie alors qu'en comparaison, le site Internet Web of Science n'en trouve qu'une petite fraction. Nous avons analyse ces deux plateformes de recherches de litterature de recherche en comparant et en contrastant les resultats de recherches sur la periode de 2005 a 2016. Les resultats ont aussi ete analyses en termes de tendances de production de savoirs et d'accessibilite aux savoirs. Notamment, les analyses de citation ont suggere qu'il y a des cercles d'echanges de connaissances distincts et de publication, principalement renouvelables autour de l'accessibilite de la recherche. En plus de souligner le paysage de la recherche sur la securite alimentaire en Ethiopie, cette etude a des implications pour les critiques systematiques, specifiant les forces et les limites des bases de donnees respectives ainsi que les zones mises en lumieres pour de futures enquetes, telles les barrieres aux publications et a la categorisation de journaux.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".