MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3095476959 · doi:10.3968/11843

Assessment of Forest Products’ Utilization among Rural Dwellers in Osun State, Nigeria

2020· article· en· W3095476959 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Waheed Suberu Sulaimon, Olanike F. Deji

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian social science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocioeconomicsGeographyAgricultural scienceMultistage samplingForestryEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceStatisticsMathematicsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study assessed the level of utilization of forest products by rural dwellers in Osun State Nigeria. It specifically described the socio-economic characteristics of the rural dwellers involved in utilization of forest products and determined the level of utilization of the forest products. Multistage sampling procedure was used in selecting a total of 240 respondents from four local government areas. Structured interview schedule and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) guide were used to collect quantitative and qualitative data respectively. Data collected were analysed using descriptive tools such as mean, frequency counts, percentages and standard deviation; and inferential tools such as Chi-square and Correlation analyses, as well as content analysis for qualitative data. The mean age of the respondents was 47.08±11.67 years, while the mean total annual income was ₦360,012.71±₦3000.59 respectively. Furthermore the mean level of utilization of forest products was 257.99±71.66. The type of organization ( χ 2 = 128.693), ethnicity ( χ 2 = 42.616) and the major occupation ( χ 2 = 13.882) were associated with level of utilization of forest products at p ≤ 0.01 and p ≤ 0.05. Age (r = 0.172) and total income (r = 0.222) significantly correlated with level of utilization of forest products at p ≤ 0.01. In conclusion, there was a moderate level of utilization of forest products in the study area. It was therefore, recommended that specific forest policies be put in place to ease access, control and maximum use of forest products.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian social science→Same topicForest Management and Policy→French-language works237,207→