A Systematic Literature Review of the Contribution of Past Climate Information Services Pilot Projects in Climate Risk Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many pilot-based initiatives have been developed to promote awareness and use of climate information services among vulnerable smallholder farmers in Africa through million-dollar investments. However, despite their experimental nature, these pilot projects have been successful in raising participating farmers’ awareness and use of climate information services and they can inform transferrable good practices. Through a systematic literature review approach, this review sought to understand ways in which these past pilot projects have contributed to climate risk management in the context of smallholder farming and the factors that led to their success. Results showed that climate information services main contribution to climate risk management has been through facilitating farm level decision making. Factors that led to success of the pilots include: use of downscaled information; building institutional partnerships to add value to climate information; involving farmers through the co-designing and co-developing process; face-to-face way of communication; embedding pre-seasonal workshops in the activities of local institutions for sustainability; using diversity of communication channels to enhance reach among others. These factors can be borrowed as good practices to inform future efforts focused on increasing adoption of climate information services among a wider population beyond pilot project reach.
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 | 0.020 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".