MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392963518 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v11i3.2284

Reducing Risks Of Income Of The Small Dry Land Maize Farmers In East Nusa Tenggara Province, Indonesia

2024· article· en· W4392963518 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Damianus Adar, Aleksius Madu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Development and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDry landGeographyBusinessAgroforestryAgricultural economicsAgronomyEnvironmental scienceEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maize is an important staple food for small dry land farmers in the East Nusa Tenggara (NTT) Province, Indonesia. This research was conducted to investigate factors influencing maize farmer’s income, level and source of income risk; and recommended strategies to reduce the risk involving 170 small farmers. Data were analyzed quantitatively using income and risk analysis, variation covariance, and multiple regressions, applying the revenue function and error component model. The results showed that the income of maize farmers was low, and all income risk factors are categorized as low-risk. Furthermore, all the income factors significantly affected the farmers’ income, but production and selling prices were the most important income factors. Other income factors, such as the costs of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, labor and land area caused no effect on the farmers’ income. The main source of income risk in dry land maize farming was high labor costs, which caused low productivity and profitability. Therefore, improving land productivity through the use of appropriate and intensive modern technology and improving the skills of workers are the main strategies to reduce the income risk and to increase the income of small farmers in dry land areas.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.106 · 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 designObservational
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 Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicAgricultural Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207