Plant clinics act to bolster extension delivery in smallholder farming in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Chinese government has increasingly opened up its agricultural extension sector over the last three decades in response to growing service demand, bringing many actors into the scene. One outcome has been the diversification of information sources for farmers, which now include agricultural input suppliers, farmers' associations, the mass media, nongovernmental organisations etc. Information is an essential input in farming decision-making and the lack of it, the wrongful use of it or the use of an inaccurate form of it could produce catastrophic consequences for farmers. For information to generate the greatest benefit for farmers it must be credible, timely, specific to farmers' concerns, packaged based on their circumstances and delivered by an authority they regard as credible. In a pluralistic extension delivery system farmers face the difficulty of determining which source of information is dependable. And since farmers' information-seeking behaviour is dependent on their intrinsic and socioeconomic qualities, ensuring access by all farmers to reliable information is difficult to guarantee. The Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences and Plantwise undertook a study October 2013 to April 2014 in Peng Shan county, Si Chuan province of China among 144 households to learn about how farmers interacted with the providers of agricultural advice, including the newly introduced plant clinics, and if lessons existed that could help in refining and enhancing the extension services.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".