MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283695718 · doi:10.1016/j.cois.2022.100946

Institutional and policy bottlenecks to IPM

2022· review· en· W4283695718 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roger Day, Steven Haggblade, Shadrack Moephuli, A. W. Mwang’ombe, Simplice Nouala

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Insect Science · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaDirektion für Entwicklung und ZusammenarbeitForeign, Commonwealth and Development Office
KeywordsSustainabilityProduction (economics)ProductivityBusinessAgricultureBiotechnologyIntegrated pest managementAgrochemicalNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningBiologyEconomicsEconomic growthAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper summarises institutional and policy bottlenecks to IPM in Africa. Agricultural policy in Africa generally prioritises production and productivity above environmental sustainability, so the use of synthetic pesticides for controlling pests is encouraged. Funding for research in IPM is limited, and extension systems struggle to provide the level of farmer support that adoption of IPM often needs. Improved research and extension policies could facilitate uptake of IPM. Public and private food-safety standards can incentivise adoption, but currently this is mainly in production for export. Pesticide and other input regulatory systems unintentionally constrain adoption of IPM, through expensive registration procedures, weak compliance monitoring and limited regional harmonisation. IPM must be seen as a key element of food-system transformation.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.137 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Insect ScienceSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207