MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2912588397 · doi:10.5539/sar.v8n1p104

Factors Affecting Profitability of Smallholder Vegetable Farmers in the Shiselweni Region, Kingdom of Eswatini (Swaziland)

2019· article· en· W2912588397 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
L. Rugube, Sifisile P. Nsibande, Michael T. Masarirambi, Patricia J. Musi

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexDescriptive statisticsHectareSubsidyAgricultureAgricultural scienceProduction (economics)BusinessAgricultural economicsRegression analysisIrrigationEconomicsGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agriculture is the main anchor of the Eswatini economy and profitability in this sector still remains vital for sustainable development of the economy. This study investigated the factors affecting profitability of smallholder vegetable farmers in the Shiselweni region. Primary data was obtained using a structured questionnaire and personal interviews from 60 vegetable farmers. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics, enterprise budget, profitability ratios and multiple linear regression models. The SPSS software was used. The results showed that the mean age of the vegetable farmers was found to be 50.5 years, the mean household size was 8 people, mean farming experience was 3 years, mean farm size was 3 hectares and the majority of the farmers had high school education. The net income of smallholder vegetable farmers was E5810.30. The results of the multiple linear regression analysis revealed that land size, gender, household size, had a direct relationship with profitability of vegetable production while age, education, experience, income and labour had a negative relationship. Farmers requested that the subsidized farm inputs should arrive on time, new engines be bought for them and dams be constructed to generate irrigation water in winter.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.718

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207