MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4231724764 · doi:10.1093/jae/ejx017

Variable Returns to Fertiliser Use and the Geography of Poverty: Experimental and Simulation Evidence from Malawi

2017· article· en· W4231724764 on OpenAlexaff
Aurélie P. Harou, Yanyan Liu, Christopher B. Barrett, Liangzhi You

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of African Economies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersConsortium of International Agricultural Research CentersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaIrish Aid
KeywordsEconomicsPovertyVariable (mathematics)EconometricsMathematicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

J Afr Econ (2017) 26 (3): 342–371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jae/ejx002 In the original article, the Acknowledgements section was inadvertently deleted. We have added this in to the online version. It should have read as follows: We thank Todd Benson for his technical support and for making the experimental trial data available and Jacob Ricker-Gilbert, Megan Sheahan, and Mariam Mapila for providing maize and fertilizer price data. We thank Zhe Guo for GIS assistance. We thank audiences at Columbia and Cornell Universities and Marc Bellemare, Julia Berazneva, Brian Dillon, Andrew Dorward, Thom Jayne, Hope Michelson, Karl Pauw, Jacob Ricker-Gilbert, Megan Sheahan, and Scott Swinton for helpful feedback and comments on an earlier draft, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Award No. 71228301), Irish Aid (Malawi), and the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets for financial support. Any errors remain solely our own responsibility.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.272
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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of African EconomiesSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207