MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295337148 · doi:10.1080/09614524.2022.2110571

Retooling incentive mechanisms for effective smallholder tree growers’ contributions to global landscape restoration

2022· article· en· W4295337148 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Eric Mensah Kumeh, Boateng Kyereh, Joseph Asante, Godfred Ohene-Gyan, Valerie Fummey Nassah, Alexander Asare, Paul P. Bosu, Samuel Kwabena Nketiah

Bibliographic record

VenueDevelopment in Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Cooperation and Exchange ProgrammeDepartment of Sport and Recreation, Northern Territory GovernmentNetherlands Institute of GovernmentMinisterium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Natur- und Verbraucherschutz des Landes Nordrhein-WestfalenInternational Interdisciplinary Laboratory for Advanced Functional Materials, Linköpings UniversitetSouthern African Science Service Centre for Climate Change and Adaptive Land ManagementCultural Affairs and Missions Sector, Ministry of Higher EducationForeign Affairs and International Trade CanadaDirectorate-General for Migration and Home Affairs
KeywordsIncentiveAgroforestryTree (set theory)Natural resource economicsBusinessGeographyEnvironmental planningEconomicsEnvironmental scienceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Amid the global tree-planting rush to restore degraded landscapes, this study examined how service providers organise incentives for smallholder forest plantations in rural Ghana. Current incentives push farmers to plant trees without adequate mechanisms for ensuring they benefit over time. This enables timber merchants to exploit many tree growers, discouraging most farmers from participating in restoration activities. While some tree growers innovate, converting their plantations into a sustainable charcoal system, land tenure insecurity and poor access to finance remain barriers policymakers, governments, and development practitioners must overcome to reinforce smallholders’ contributions and ability to benefit from landscape restoration perennially.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDevelopment in PracticeSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207