MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3142545889 · doi:10.6000/1929-7092.2013.02.14

Improving Agricultural Productivity and Market Efficiency in Latin America and the Caribbean: How ICTs can make a Difference?

2013· article· en· W3142545889 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Aparajita Goyal, Carolina González-Velosa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reviews on Global Economics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicICT Impact and Policies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsICTSLatin AmericansProductivityAgricultureAgricultural economicsBusinessAgricultural productivityEconomicsNatural resource economicsEconomic growthInformation and Communications TechnologyGeographyPolitical scienceArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: The rapid dissemination of ICTs in rural areas in LAC has been received with a lot of optimism, as these technologies are thought to be potentially effective tools of agricultural development. However, rigorous analyses of the impacts of ICTs on agriculture are still very scarce and lag behind the rapid penetration of these technologies. This paper is the first attempt to summarize recent findings from some of the few academic studies addressing this topic and complementing this analysis with anecdotal evidence and findings from case studies. Overall, the available evidence indicates that ICTs can play a major role in promoting agricultural productivity and rural development in LAC. By closing information gaps and reducing transaction costs, ICTs can improve the opportunities of farmers in agricultural markets and empower smallholders. ICTs can also foster productivity by facilitating the dissemination of technological knowledge and expand the access to financial and public services among the rural population by making service provision more affordable. Nonetheless, to the extent that the effective provision of ICTs has certain minimum requirements in terms of human and physical capital, many agricultural economies will be unable to reap the full benefits of these technologies.

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 score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reviews on Global EconomicsSame topicICT Impact and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207