MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206786858 · doi:10.32996/bjes.2022.2.1.2

Agricultural and Extension Education for Sustainability Approach

2022· article· en· W4206786858 on OpenAlexaff
Kwaku Adu, John Joseph Puthenkalam, Antwi Effah Kwabena

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Environmental Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureTillageMathematicsAgricultural extensionMulchSustainabilityFertilizerAgricultural economicsAgricultural scienceEnvironmental scienceEconomicsGeographyAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study analyzed the emerging land rights and the extent of the relationship between agricultural and extension education and soil conservation practices. A survey of 376 household heads randomly sampled respondents was administered using a well-structured questionnaire. Results from correlation analysis revealed that the relationship between "agricultural and extension education" and the soil conservation variables "mulching, zero tillage, and the use of crop residues or household refuse" was positive, moderate in strength, and statistically significant. However, the relationship between "agricultural and extension education" and "slash and burn agriculture" was negative, moderate in strength, and statistically significant. The results from the linear probability model show that the coefficients of "Agricultural and Extension education" are statistically significant at a 1% level of significance for all the model specifications except the case where "organic fertilizer" is used as the dependent variable. Specifically, the results indicate that Agricultural and Extension education increases the probability of farmers practising mulching, use of crop or household residues, and zero tillage by 59.4, 16.1, and 33.6 percentage points, respectively. Also, Agricultural and Extension Education decreases the probability of farmers practising slash and burn agriculture by about 16.2 percentage points. Agricultural and Extension education increases the probability of farmers practising at least two of the soil conservations by 25 percentage points, while it increases the probability of farmers practising at least three of those soil conservations by 5.5 percentage points. Based on the results, we propose the Agricultural and Extension Education for Sustainability approach. This approach consists of knowledge, skills, motivation, awareness, concern, responsibility, and action. Therefore, policies geared towards agricultural and extension services should be highly prioritized.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations7
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Environmental StudiesSame topicDiverse Educational Innovations StudiesFrench-language works237,207