MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006181376 · doi:10.5539/jas.v12n3p141

Impact of ICT Based Extension Services on Dairy Production and Household Welfare: The Case of iCow Service in Kenya

2020· article· en· W3006181376 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mwita Erick Marwa, John Mburu, Okeyo Mwai, S. Kahumbu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Livestock Research Institute
KeywordsBusinessWelfareProduction (economics)Information and Communications TechnologyDairy farmingAgricultureHousehold incomeAgricultural economicsAgricultural scienceMatching (statistics)Agricultural extensionService providerService (business)EconomicsMarketingGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smallholder dairy farmers have the challenges of accessing timely and reliable agricultural information, and this limits them from realizing maximum farm output. The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) as a farming extension tool by smallholder farmers has the potential to reverse the scenario and improve farmers’ outputs and incomes leading to increased welfare. This study employed the Propensity score Matching approach to evaluate the impacts of ICT-based extension services, in this case, iCow services on milk production, milk income, and household income using cross-sectional data from a survey of dairy farmers in Uasin Gishu, Nyandarua and Bomet counties of Kenya. The use of ICT-based iCow services is shown to increase Annual milk production per cow, milk income, and household income by 13%, 29%, and 22%, respectively. Partnerships between network providers and research institutes should be encouraged as part of bridging the extension gap occasioned by reduced public expenditure on extension services.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations43
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207