MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193443405 · doi:10.51983/arss-2019.8.2.1568

Problems Faced by Agricultural Landless Laborers in Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu: A Status Analysis

2019· article· en· W3193443405 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Janifar

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Review of Social Sciences · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTamilAgricultureSeekersSocioeconomicsNonprobability samplingEconomic growthUnemploymentBusinessQuarter (Canadian coin)PoliticsWork (physics)GeographyPolitical scienceEconomicsPopulationSociologyEngineeringDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

India is the second the largest part populous country of the world and has changing socio-economic condition and political demographic and morbidity patterns that have been illustration global thought in current years. Though in recent times enacted MGNREGA, 2005 provides 100 days guarantee of employment in a year, there is great deal of fraud in issuing job cards. Moreover, gather rolls are not maintained accurately and work is not provided to job seekers who really are in need of such support. The problem of agricultural landless laborers is part of the wider problem of unemployment and under-employment in rural areas. Research is primarily a study of how the problems of agricultural workers face. The study is conducted among the farmers in the Parangipettai block in Cuddalore district. Multi-stage purposive sampling method was adopted for selection of the respondents. In this, contexts were selected from 3 select villages of Parangipettai block, Cuddalore district. Size of the primary inclusion is 120. Hence the agricultural landless labourers play an important to role in agriculture sector where the production depends on both the agricultural landless labourers and landowning farmers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.691

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Review of Social SciencesSame topicAgricultural Economics and PracticesFrench-language works237,207