MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103142363 · doi:10.1177/0049085720957512

Access to Non-farm Employment in Contemporary India: A Study of Bihar and Punjab

2020· article· en· W3103142363 on OpenAlexaff
Gurpreet Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Change · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsInstitute on Governance
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCasteLivelihoodAgricultureDiversification (marketing strategy)Agrarian societyContext (archaeology)BusinessEconomic growthSocioeconomicsWork (physics)Agricultural economicsGeographyEconomicsPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rural non-farm diversification in India is taking up new roles amidst increasing agrarian distress. In this context, two issues have been examined in this paper: first, the nature of rural non-farm diversification, and second, the accessibility of households to rural non-farm employment in the states of Bihar and Punjab. The study is predominantly based on unit level data of the latest round of the Situational Assessment Survey of Agricultural Households (NSSO). Findings suggest that while non-farm activities are largely adopted by landless and marginal land households in both states, there are a few lucrative options available which are being accessed by large landholders in Punjab. Overall, caste, gender and education are dominant determinants that work as barriers to the entry for rural households. The findings recommend that institutional reforms along with public policies should be prioritised towards generating sustainable non-farm livelihood options while eliminating multi-dimensional exclusions in rural labour markets considering regional prerequisites.

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)0.001
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 score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.320
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.037 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial ChangeSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207