Identifying maize yield and precipitation gaps in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), precipitation is an important driver of agricultural production. In Uganda, maize production is essentially rain-fed. However, due to changes in climate, projected maize yield targets have not often been met as actual observed maize yields are often below simulated/projected yields. This outcome has often been attributed to parallel gaps in precipitation. This study aims at identifying maize yield and precipitation gaps in Uganda for the period 1998–2017. Time series historical actual observed maize yield data (hg/ha/year) for the period 1998–2017 were collected from FAOSTAT. Actual observed maize growing season precipitation data were also collected from the climate portal of World Bank Group for the period 1998–2017. The simulated or projected maize yield data and the simulated or projected growing season precipitation data were simulated using a simple linear regression approach. The actual maize yield and actual growing season precipitation data were now compared with the simulated maize yield data and simulated growing season precipitation to establish the yield gaps. The results show that three key periods of maize yield gaps were observed (period one: 1998, period two: 2004–2007 and period three: 2015–2017) with parallel precipitation gaps. However, in the entire series (1998–2017), the years 2008–2009 had no yield gaps yet, precipitation gaps were observed. This implies that precipitation is not the only driver of maize yields in Uganda. In fact, this is supported by a low correlation between precipitation gaps and maize yield gaps of about 6.3%. For a better understanding of cropping systems in SSA, other potential drivers of maize yield gaps in Uganda such as soils, farm inputs, crop pests and diseases, high yielding varieties, literacy, and poverty levels should be considered.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".