MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245593155 · doi:10.1079/cabicomm-62-8109

Plant clinics and plant health diagnostic labs team up for crop health in Ghana

2015· report· en· W4245593155 on OpenAlexfundno aff
E. W. Cornelius, Shadrack Coffie

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 CanadaMinistry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of ChinaDepartment for International Development
KeywordsCropMedicineEngineeringBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Ghana, plant pests and diseases are responsible for about 30% of crop yield losses annually.Plant clinics, supported by Plantwise, have been working in the country since 2012 to help farmers reduce such losses.Plant doctors occasionally need expert support from plant health diagnostic laboratories to accurately diagnose plant health problems that are difficult to identify.Without this support they are limited in their ability to make reliable recommendations to farmers.University of Ghana carried out a study to assess the current support provided to plant clinics by diagnostic laboratories and to find out how to improve the relationship. Key highlights• Almost all the existing 27 plant health diagnostic laboratories in Ghana render support to agricultural extension officers on identification of plant pests and diseases, but only a third of the plant clinics use them.Among the reasons are: absence of laboratories in some localities, inadequate sample referral systems and shortage of capacity of some of the laboratories.• There is a good degree of cooperation among laboratories but their collaboration with plant clinics and other extension providers is generally weak.A formal framework for the interaction of plant clinics and diagnostic laboratories would help to facilitate their collaboration.• Laboratories do not usually charge for the laboratory analyses, but in a few cases plant doctors and other agricultural extension officers are charged for laboratory consumables.In such cases, they use their personal savings or funding from Council for Scientific and Industrial Research and Ministry of Food and Agriculture.• Staff of most of the diagnostic laboratories has postgraduate education, which has positive consequences for the quality of laboratory services.Yet, laboratory technicians and plant doctors could benefit from short courses in phytoplasma and viral disease diagnostics, plant nutrient and soil analysis and weed identification.

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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.002

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 head0.169
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207