MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3164273838 · doi:10.5539/sar.v10n3p25

Vulnerability of Farmers to Crop Farming Risks in Ethiopia: An Integrated Vulnerability Analysis Approach Using Social-Ecological System Framework

2021· article· en· W3164273838 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chalchisa Fana, Jama Haji, Moti Jaleta, Alelign Ademe, Girma Gebresenbet

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAmbo UniversityHaramaya University
KeywordsLivelihoodVulnerability (computing)AgricultureProbit modelBusinessDiversification (marketing strategy)Agricultural diversificationSocial vulnerabilitySocioeconomicsGovernment (linguistics)Survey data collectionGeographyAgricultural economicsAgricultural scienceEconomicsPsychological intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crop production under a smallholder system is challenged by several (a)biotic risks those resulted in livelihood insecurity. This study assesses farmers’ perceived vulnerability level to the crop farming risks and identifies its determinants using an integrated vulnerability analysis approach. Survey data collected from 393 sample households in West Shewa Zone, Ethiopia, were analyzed using PCA and ordered probit regression. Results indicate that 13 percent of the sampled households are highly vulnerable, 73.5 percent are moderately vulnerable and 13.5 percent are less vulnerable where 77 percent of the highly vulnerable groups faced more than 3 months lean season and 72 percent of the less vulnerable groups faced less than 3 months of lean season. Moreover, farming experience and education level of household head, livestock owned, farm size, on-farm diversification, access to credit, small scale irrigation, off-farming income, extension contact, and social capital are significantly affecting the perceived vulnerability level. These calls for need-based government and/or non-government intervention plans focusing on improving rural infrastructure and facilities and devising an effective and responsive institutional setup for enhancing the responsive capacities of smallholder farmers in the short-run and minimizing the likelihood of exposure and sensitivity in the long-run.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207