MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954723419 · doi:10.1007/s40003-019-00416-8

Evaluating Economic Viability of Large Fish Solar Tent Dryers

2019· article· en· W2954723419 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Levison Chiwaula, Collen Kawiya, Patrick Kambewa

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceNet present valueRevenueAgricultureFish <Actinopterygii>Economic evaluationEnvironmental engineeringAgricultural scienceToxicologyFisheryBusinessEcologyBiologyEconomicsProduction (economics)Finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effectiveness of solar tent dryers in agricultural products has been well documented, but this information may not be generalised for use of solar dryers in all agricultural commodities and for all sizes of solar dryers. As such, we evaluated the economic viability of large capital intensive solar dryer that has been designed to dry small fish species on commercial basis on Lake Malawi. A probabilistic net present value (NPV) analysis was applied to a 15-m-long by 8-m-wide solar tent dryer which costs MK1,513,850 (US$2100) to construct and has a maximum carrying capacity 850 kg of fresh fish. The results show that the base NPV of this solar tent dryer is MWK5, 838,482.11 (US$11,762). When risk and uncertainty are considered, the probabilistic NPV becomes MWK12, 268,503 (US$24,716). The probability of obtaining a positive NPV was 58%, and we found that NPV is highly sensitive to total revenue and total cost but not to their components. We conclude that investments in large solar tent dryers are economically viable and that viability would be enhanced through access to formal fish markets where prices are stable and high.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 venueAgricultural ResearchSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207