MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212350432 · doi:10.4314/jae.v25i4.10

Factors affecting multiple climate change adaptation practices of smallholder farmers in lower Eastern Kenya

2021· article· en· W3212350432 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hezron Mogaka, Lydia N. Muriithi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Extension · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)Socioeconomic statusAgricultureIncentiveMultistage samplingAdaptation (eye)Complementarity (molecular biology)Climate changeScale (ratio)Stratified samplingBusinessSocioeconomicsAgricultural economicsGeographyEconomicsMarketingPopulationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study investigated the socioeconomic and institutional factors influencing uptake of multiple climate change adaptation practices among smallholder farmers in lower Eastern Kenya. Multistage sampling procedure was used to select 384 small-scale farmers. Percentage and regression were used in the analysis. Among the socio-economic factors, gender positively and significantly influenced adoption of conservation agriculture and water harvesting at 5%, respectively. Among the institutional factors, distance to markets positively or negatively influenced uptake of all the technologies at 1% and 5%, respectively. Due to complementarity in adoption of all the seven adaptation practices, age and distance to nearest markets should be considered during technology dissemination. The study, therefore, calls for agricultural policy reforms that aim at designing incentive programmes which adequately address most of the socioeconomic and institutional issues related to uptake of adaptation practices as well as encouraging off-farm diversification.

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)0.002
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ExtensionSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207