MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4230678279 · doi:10.1079/cabicomm-62-8159

Bundling Agricultural Services under Seeing Is Believing and Plantwise: Benefits and Opportunities

2021· report· en· W4230678279 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaInternational Fund for Agricultural DevelopmentMinistry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of ChinaAustralian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchInternational Fine Particle Research InstituteForeign, Commonwealth and Development OfficeIrish Aid
KeywordsAgricultureBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Seeing is Believing (SIB) project builds on the Plantwise (PW) programme and provides picture-based advisories (PBA), i.e. remote advice to farmers based on picture-based crop monitoring.Farmers registered in the SIB project send images of affected crops and repeat images of the fields via mobile phone using an app.Plant doctors assess the images and provide plant health advice to farmers by messages on their registered mobile numbers.Farmers are provided with different management options, based on the severity of crop damage.During the third season of the project, 350 farmers from 70 villages in Pudukottai and Thanjavur, were targeted with PBA.175 farmers received a bundled service of PBA and picture-based insurance (PBI), with insurance pay-outs based on any visible damage in the field images uploaded by the farmers.The other 175 farmers only received PBA.Plant clinics (PC) were run in all the 70 village locations covered under SIB.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0320.004

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 head0.142
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.135 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207