MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2953903906 · doi:10.5539/jas.v11n10p1

Do Socioeconomic Factors Matter in Acreage Owned and Acreage Farmed by Small Livestock Producers in Alabama?

2019· article· en· W2953903906 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Nii O. Tackie, Jannette R. Bartlett, Nicole I. Nunoo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Food and AgricultureU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSocioeconomic statusLivestockAgricultureLogistic regressionGeographySocioeconomicsAgricultural scienceDescriptive statisticsOrdered logitAgricultural economicsForestryEconomicsDemographyPopulationMathematicsBiologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Socioeconomic factors could affect acreage owned and acreage farmed by small producers. However, there is limited research on the issue in the Southeastern U.S., for example, Alabama. Thus, this study examined the impact of socioeconomic factors on acreage owned and acreage farmed by small livestock producers in Alabama. The data were collected from a convenience sample of producers from several counties in Alabama, and analyzed using descriptive statistics and ordinal logistic regression analysis. The results showed that a majority had farming experience of more than 30 years, but had livestock farming experience of less than 30 years. Also, a little over half owned over 60 acres of land, and a majority (58%) farmed over 60 acres. The ordinal logistic regression analyses showed that, of the socioeconomic factors, only age and education had statistically significant effects on acreage owned and acreage farmed. The findings suggest that socioeconomic factors, specifically, age and education, are important to farm size in the study area.

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 score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207