Balancing co-benefits and trade-offs between climate change mitigation and adaptation innovations under mixed crop-livestock systems in semi-arid Zimbabwe
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Achieving Zimbabwe’s national and international commitments to food systems transformation and climate resilience building is of high priority. Integrated simulation-based research approaches developed under the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP) are important sources of evidence to guide policy decisions towards sustainable intensification. Through the identification of economically viable, socially inclusive and environmentally sustainable development pathways, the analysis in this study evaluates co-benefits and trade-offs between climate change adaptation and mitigation interventions for vulnerable smallholder crop-livestock holdings in the semi-arid regions of Zimbabwe. We explore how climate effects disrupt the livelihoods and food security for diverse farm types, the extremely vulnerable and those better resource endowed but facing high risks. In an iterative process with experts and stakeholders, we co-developed context specific development pathways. They include market-oriented adaptation and mitigation interventions and social protection mechanisms that would support the transition towards more sustainable intensified, diversified and better integrated crop-livestock systems. We assess the trade-offs associated with adoption of climate-smart interventions aimed at improving incomes and food security but that may have consequences on GHG emissions for the different pathways and farm types. The approach and results inform the discussion on drivers that can bring about sustainable intensification, and the extent to which socio-economic benefits could enhance the uptake of emission reducing technologies thereof. Through this strategy we evaluate interventions that can result in win–win outcomes, that is, adaptation-mitigation co-benefits, and what this would imply for policies that aim at transforming agri-food systems.
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.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it