The Effect of Inter-Organisational Collaboration Networks on Climate Knowledge Flows and Communication to Pastoralists in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Kenya, pastoralists have utilized natural grasslands using practices that often result in overgrazing, low productivity and low income. Such practices have caused environmental problems, which could be exacerbated by climate change. Although knowledge on practices that increase pastoralists’ capacity to adapt to climate and environmental challenges is currently available, the adoption rate remains poor. Hence, there is growing interest in understanding how cross-scale inter-organizational collaboration process either facilitates or hinders climate knowledge communications to and uptake by pastoralists. This study used network analysis to identify how inter-organizational collaborations in knowledge production and dissemination shape knowledge flow and communication to pastoralists in Kenya. A knowledge mapping workshop, key informant interviews and questionnaire surveys were used to identify the key organizations involved in the generation, brokering, and dissemination of adaptation knowledge to pastoralists. Two networks of configurations were explored: (i) relations of collaboration in knowledge production and (ii) relations of collaboration in knowledge dissemination. Measure of clustering coefficient, density, core-periphery location, and degree centrality were used to analyze the network structure and cohesion, and its influence on knowledge flow and adoption. Findings revealed a strong integration across the network with research institutes, NGOs (Non-governmental organizations), and CBOs (Community based organizations) identified as among the central actors, based on their degree centrality. Further, we observed a higher density of ties among actors in the knowledge production network than the dissemination network. The lower density of the dissemination network indicates there are not that many activities by key organizations aimed at ensuring that knowledge reaches the users, compared to activities related to knowledge generation. This also results in poor feedback processes from local pastoralists to knowledge generators and brokers. Knowledge transfer and uptake could therefore be enhanced by improving dissemination activities and feedback mechanisms in the dissemination network as a means of capturing pastoralist perspectives on the relevance, reliability, and usability of knowledge for action. Reflection and revision can be used to improve knowledge so that it is more in sync with a pastoralist context.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".