The Effect of Agricultural Polices on Promoting Palestinian Farmer Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to investigate the effect of agricultural policies on promoting the resilience of Palestinian farmers, as the study followed the quantitative and qualitative approach that relies on studying the phenomenon as it exists in reality and is concerned with describing it as an accurate and quantitative and qualitative expression. To achieve the objectives of the study, an interview was designed and directed to a sample Made up of five experts specialized in agricultural affairs. A questionnaire was also designed and directed to a sample of (150) farmers. The results of the study revealed that the impact of agricultural policies contributes to strengthening the steadfastness of Palestinian farmers, with an average of (3.4), with a medium degree. Sufficiency for Palestinian farmers. In light of the results, the study recommended the need for the Palestinian government to increase the share of agriculture in the general budget, since the agricultural sector is in a dangerous condition and must be taken care of, and the need to encourage farms and notify them of safety by protecting the market, by preventing the entry of non-local products, especially those of the Israeli occupation (being competition For local products, by lowering their prices) to ensure that the farmer sells his crops.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".