MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981921936 · doi:10.1080/21665095.2019.1678186

The impact of adaptation practices on crop productivity in northwest Ethiopia: an endogenous switching estimation

2019· article· en· W2981921936 on OpenAlexaff
Tsega Adego, Belay Simane, Getachew Abebe Woldie

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment Studies Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityYield (engineering)Psychological interventionClimate changeCrop productivityAdaptation (eye)Agricultural economicsCrop yieldCropEstimationGeographyEconomicsPsychologyEconomic growthAgronomyForestryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change and variability adversely affect smallholder farmers in developing countries, including Ethiopia. In response, farmers are adopting various adaptation strategies. However, there is a paucity of studies examining whether or not these responses benefit farmers in increasing crop productivity. Cognizant of this fact and its policy importance, this study empirically analyzes the impact of adaptation strategies on crop productivity in northwest Ethiopia. We collected data through household survey questionnaire, focus group discussion and key informant interview. We also analyzed time-series climate data to see how crop yield responds to climate variability. The empirical model employs the endogenous switching regression. Climate information and distance to market are validated as instrumental variables. The model revealed that farmers who adopted adaptation strategies would have gained lower yield if they had not adopted them; and those who did not adopt a strategy would have gained higher yield than if they had. Improved seed, contact with development agents (DAs), urea, compost and rainfall are significantly associated with the likelihood of increasing yield. The results also show systematic difference where age is inversely related with adapters and vice versa for non-adapters. Hence, adaptation interventions should consider these heterogeneities.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.368
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.087 · 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

Citations71
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment Studies ResearchSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207