MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3161612244 · doi:10.1080/09614524.2021.1911949

Barriers and opportunities for the youth engagement in agribusiness: empirical evidence from Zambia and Vietnam

2021· article· en· W3161612244 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Joseph Mulema, Idah Mugambi, Monica K. Kansiime, Hong Twu Chan, Michael Chimalizeni, Thi Xuan Pham, George Oduor

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment in Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaInternational Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentMinistry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of ChinaForeign, Commonwealth and Development OfficeIrish Aid
KeywordsAgribusinessProfitability indexAgricultureBusinessEconomic growthSocial capitalEconomicsPolitical scienceFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assessed barriers and opportunities for youth engagement in agribusiness. Results show that the majority of youth were engaged in agricultural production, especially in Zambia, while in Vietnam, they engaged in more diversified agricultural activities including input supply, transportation and advisory services delivery. Perceptions regarding the agricultural sector showed significant (P < 0.01) negative impact on youth participation in agribusiness in Vietnam, but not in Zambia. Barriers to effective youth engagement were; lack of start-up capital, low profitability of enterprises, and personal aspirations. Employing innovative value chain financing and market linkages can enhance enterprise profitability and youth participation in agribusiness.

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)0.003
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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.141 · 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

Citations62
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment in PracticeSame topicInnovation and Socioeconomic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207