Stock Theft: Rural Livestock Farmers' Entrepreneurial Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The collation between stock theft and rural livestock farmers’ entrepreneurial perspectives receive limited attention in the field of Criminology and Criminal Justice, as well as ‘Business Administration’ nor entrepreneurial dominance industry. Conventionally, stock theft is nothing new in South Africa, traditional interpretations and recorded cases can be reportedly traced back to 1806. This study reflects the duality of stock theft, offering criminological [Theoretical] explanations and glimpses of attractive business enterprises by adopting the three elements of ‘Timmons Model of Entrepreneurial Process’ through the use of non-empirical research design: Systematic review, while featuring the most affected areas by stock theft in the Eastern Cape (EC), KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) and Mpumalanga (MP) Provinces respectively, while focusing on 2014-2020 financial years. This study establishes provides that this crime, instead of making more business avenues for rural livestock farmers, will continue to decrease the number of job opportunities. It is recommended that the South African government (I.e. national, provincial and local levels), agricultural industries, and the local South African Police Service Stock Theft Units (SAPS STUs) as a collective and commodity organisations will have to gravely consider offering adequate services required to bring workable solutions for initiation of entrepreneurial activities in the selected provinces.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".