MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981887030 · doi:10.5539/mas.v13n11p103

Identification of Factors Affecting Food Productivity Improvement in Kalimantan Using Nonparametric Spatial Regression Method

2019· article· en· W2981887030 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sifriyani Sifriyani, Suyitno Suyitno, Nanda Arista Rizki

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Development and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureProductivityAgricultural productivityStatisticsNonparametric statisticsRegression analysisMathematicsProduction (economics)PopulationGeographyAgricultural economicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problems of Food Productivity in Kalimantan is experiencing instability. Every year, various problems and inhibiting factors that cause the independence of food production in Kalimantan are suffering a setback. The food problems in Kalimantan requires a solution, therefore this study aims to analyze the factors that influence the increase of productivity and production of food crops in Kalimantan using Spatial Statistics Analysis. The method used is Nonparametric Spatial Regression with Geographic Weighting. Sources of research data used are secondary data and primary data obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture and the Central Statistics Agency. The total area used is 56 regencies/cities in Kalimantan. The results show that there are 13 factors affect food productivity in Kalimantan. These factors are the number of agricultural business households, the number of workers in agriculture, the amount of rice production, rice field area, rice field harvest area, irrigation network area, area of each region, total area based on altitude class, area based on slope/slope class, economic growth rate, Gross Regional Domestic Product, Regional Development Index and Population Density. The best model is obtained using the geographical weighting of the Gaussian kernel function with the cross-validation value 5,65. The criteria for the goodness of the model with the number of knots 3 and order m = 1 have R2 value of 97,19% and the value of AIC is 2,43.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicAgricultural Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207