MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W39684736

Opinions of televiewers about farm and home telecasts.

2011· article· en· W39684736 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. M. Bellurkar

Bibliographic record

VenueAGRICULTURE UPDATE · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)ScheduleCredibilityAgricultureData collectionSocioeconomicsGeographySociologySocial sciencePolitical scienceManagementEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study was conducted in Parbhani district of Marathwada region of Maharashtra state. Half of urban and half of rural respondents were selected. Villages were selected in the radius of 10 km. from Taluka head quarter, where the maximum numbers of television sets were installed. Data were collected from 150 female respondents from four villages including Parbhani. An interview schedule was specially structured for data collection. The data were analyzed by using frequencies and percentages. From the study, it was found that majority of the respondents placed the highest credibility on TV as a source of technical and general information. Agricultural and home science programmes were viewed regularly by the majority of the respondents. A great majority of the respondents were aware of the timings of both of the telecasts but they did not use the information actually given through the telecasts. The maximum numbers of the respondents were satisfied with the time apportioned for the telecasts. Maximum televiewers expressed that the programmes were easy to understand and demonstration with talk was the better mode of presentation. Majority of the respondents had discussions with others about the programmes, whereas few of them were interested in taking the important notes about the programmes.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAGRICULTURE UPDATESame topicMicrofinance and Financial InclusionFrench-language works237,207