Cooperatives and sustainability: The case of maize producers in the plateaux region of Togo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzed the influence of the producer's organizational form (individual or cooperative) on the three dimensions (economic, social and environmental) of sustainability in the Plateaux Region of Togo. An innovative approach called Deep Participatory Indicator-Based (DPIB) was used to target the analysis at the producer local level. The environmental sustainability score was above average for individual producers compared to cooperatives. Economic sustainability score is not related to the producer's organization form. Social sustainability was not dependent on the form of organization. The analyses led to participatory planning and actions based on three cooperative principles. Actions based on the seventh cooperative principle - Concern for Community - raise awareness among cooperators producers on the importance of carrying out social works, agro-ecological practices and sustainable agriculture for community members. The actions related to the fifth and sixth cooperative principles - Education, Training & Information and Cooperation among Cooperatives, strengthen the capacities of cooperatives on the need to seek higher quality markets and inform coops in the region about opportunities for combined marketing actions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".