MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125506992 · doi:10.1080/23311932.2021.1879715

Determinants of market participation decision by smallholder haricot bean (<i>phaseolus vulgaris</i> l.) farmers in Northwest Ethiopia

2021· article· en· W3125506992 on OpenAlexaff
Adino Andaregie, Tess Astatkie, Fentaw Teshome Dagnaw

Bibliographic record

VenueCogent Food & Agriculture · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhaseolusAgricultural economicsAgricultural scienceAgroforestryBusinessEconomicsAgronomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current knowledge on product marketing in Ethiopia is poor and inadequate for designing and implementing policies to overcome problems in the marketing system. This study was conducted to identify the factors influencing the market participation decision of smallholder haricot bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) farmers in Northwest Ethiopia. Survey data were collected from 312 smallholder farmers and analyzed using Heckman’s two-step econometric model that estimates probit model in the first step and regression model with the parameters estimated using the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) method in the second step. The educational status, non-farm income from nonfarm employment, number of extension contacts, gender, improved seed use, chemical fertilizer, and farmers' perception of land degradation were the significant variables affecting the market participation decision of smallholder farmers. The amount of haricot bean output supplied to the market were influenced by age, experience, livestock holding, nonfarm income, extension contacts, gender, market access, and membership in marketing association. Participation in the market can be improved by providing training and education regarding the production and marketing of haricot bean output and increasing farmers' contact with extension agents.

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)0.000
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 score0.513
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations29
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCogent Food & AgricultureSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207