Socio-cultural practices on the use of beetle grubs as food and feed in western Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the socio-cultural practices on the use of beetle grubs as food and feed in western Kenya by interviewing 211 randomly selected households and conducting seven focus group discussions in Bungoma, Kakamega, Busia, and Trans Nzoia counties. The grubs were used as food and feed in ~ 39% and 78% of the households, respectively. The perceived benefits of the grubs for human consumption were nutritiousness and no linkage to allergies. The grubs were perceived to enhance animal weight gain and increase poultry egg laying. They were also perceived to recycle nutrients from organic waste, and clean the environment. Toasting and roasting were the dominant methods of preparing the grubs. Lack of knowledge on the grub nutritional benefits and stigma were key deterrents to their consumption. About 66% of the respondents expressed willingness to farm the grubs if the market and rearing protocols are available. Almost 98% of the respondents lacked knowledge of the beetle biology, indicating limited capacity to conserve them. The practices on the use of beetle grubs as food and feed differed across counties and by gender, age, marital status and education level. Strategies for sustainable use of the grubs as food and feed have been proposed and new research directions highlighted.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".