MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235776365 · doi:10.1079/cabicomm-62-8162

Do farmers adopt advice on good pesticide practices? A case study of plant doctor recommended pesticide use in maize and tomato production

2021· report· en· W4235776365 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Richard Musebe, Adewale Ogunmodede

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaForeign, Commonwealth and Development OfficeMinistry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsPesticideProduction (economics)Agricultural scienceAdvice (programming)BiotechnologyBusinessAgronomyEnvironmental scienceBiologyComputer scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pesticides are now widely used to manage the recent outbreak of crop pests such as fall armyworm (Spodoptera frugiperda, FAW) and Phthorimaea absoluta (syn.Tuta absoluta).However, reports on farmers' pesticide use practices are often insufficient.Hence, this study aimed to assess how Kenyan maize and tomato farmers' use of pesticides aligns with plant doctor recommendations.We collected data from 600 randomly selected maize and tomato farmers (clinic users and non-clinic users) using a pre-tested structured questionnaire and key informant interviews with plant doctors and extension officers.Results suggest farmer practices matched plant doctor recommendations in over 80% of clinic users' cases.However, there were significant differences in recommended pesticide use and actual practices between Do farmers adopt advice on good pesticide practices?A case study of plant doctor recommended pesticide use in maize and tomato production plant clinic users and non-plant clinic users.Although plant clinic users were significantly more likely to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) while working with pesticides, we observed inadequate PPE use among most farmers.This contributed to reported incidences of dizziness, headaches, and other acute pesticide health symptoms.Occasionally farmer practice does not match plant doctor recommendations due to the high cost of inputs, and lack of money to purchase the recommended inputs.Overall, this study shows that plant clinic participation resulted in more judicious use of pesticides and PPE wearing by farmers.The divergence in views means that there is a need to reconcile farmer actions and ideal situations through seminars, farmer field schools, barazas, and other information dissemination methods. Key highlights• Farmers follow plant doctor recommendations in over 80% of cases.Where they do not, it is mostly due to a lack of money to purchase recommended inputs.• While farmers apply suitable pesticides, they sometimes increase the strength or frequency of application, because they think this will lead to quicker pest control.• More than 85% of plant clinic users apply pesticides at the right time of the day, compared to only about 55% of non-clinic users.

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)0.003
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207