MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392783829 · doi:10.5539/jas.v16n3p47

Estimating Heterogeneous Effects of Land Titling on Rural Household’s Agricultural Productivity: Evidence From the Southern Highland Regions of Tanzania

2024· article· en· W4392783829 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fausta Marcellus Mapunda

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTanzaniaLand titlingProductivityAgricultureAgricultural productivityGeographyAgricultural economicsAgricultural landEconomic geographyLand tenureNatural resource economicsEconomicsEconomic growthEnvironmental planningArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyses the effect of land titles on agricultural productivity in the southern highland regions of Mbeya and Ruvuma and assesses the potential mediating effect of access to credit. The contribution of this paper to the existing literature is threefold. First, it contributes to the general literature on the impact of land titling on agricultural performance. Second, it investigates whether access to credit is an important mediating variable. Third, it assessed whether households respond differently depending on farmer and land characteristics. To contribute to the evidence on the impact of land titling four hypotheses were tested: Since the study is based on observational data, propensity score matching technique was employ to determine the land titling effects. The findings suggest that land titles have a statistically significant positive effect on productivity. This can at least partially be explained by an increase in credit access for titled households. The study results further suggest heterogeneous effects of titles, which vary with age of the head of household and size of land cultivated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207