The need for alternative pest management methods to mitigate risks among cocoa farmers in the Volta region, Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to assess the adoption of alternative pest management methods to reduce risks among cocoa farmers in the Volta region. Cultural control methods found to be the most practiced alternative pest management, especially in the Ho West district where majority of the farmers were more knowledgeable of alternative pest control methods. There was significant relationship between agrochemical shop services (χ 2 = 13,028, p < 0.000), farming years of experience (χ 2 = 16.424, p < 0.002), knowledge in degree of pest infestation (χ 2 = 8.498, p < 0.000), education (χ 2 = 10.557, p < 0.014), farmers' community (χ 2 = 39.275, p < 0.000) and farmers' knowledge on alternative pest control methods. Farmers who relied on agrochemical shop services for pest control methods were 87% less likely to be knowledgeable on alternative pest control methods while those who considered degree of pest infestation in pest management were (OR = 1.150, p <0.008) more likely to be knowledgeable on alternative pest control methods. For the socio-cultural factors, Leklebi Kame (OR = 9.53-e 08, p < 0.000), Bla (OR = 0.280, p < 0.027) and Gbledi Chebi (OR = 0.287, p < 0.053) were less likely to be knowledgeable on alternative method of pest control compared to Kpedze. Fellow farmers and extension agents were the major sources of information on alternative pest control methods in the study area. Economic, technical, unavailability of labour, and farm implements were factors hampering adoption of alternative pest control methods in the study area. The most pesticide toxicological symptom reported was skin irritation and was recorded among majority of the farmers in Hohoe and Afadjato South districts where low knowledge and patronage of alternative pests control methods were identified. Awareness creation and capacity building programs should be organized through fellow farmers and extension agents on the need to reduce the use of chemical pesticide in pest management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".