MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395689830 · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30397

Impact of positive selection technology on seed yam productivity

2024· article· en· W4395689830 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jonas Osei-Adu, Robert Aidoo, Simon Cudjoe Fialor, Stella Ama Ennin, Kingsley Osei, Bright Owusu Asante, Gideon Danso-Abbeam

Bibliographic record

VenueHeliyon · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMenzies School of Health ResearchBill and Melinda Gates FoundationMinistry of Agriculture and Food
KeywordsProductivityCroppingAgricultural sciencePropensity score matchingMatching (statistics)BusinessSelection (genetic algorithm)Agricultural economicsMarketingBiotechnologyEconomicsAgricultureMathematicsGeographyBiologyEconomic growthStatisticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Positive Selection (PS) technique has been shown to reduce virus infection and increase yields, however there is insufficient empirical evidence on how this technology affects seed yam farm productivity. This study employed Propensity Score Matching (PSM) technique to evaluate the impact of PS on seed yam yields of 368 farmers randomly selected from Ghana and Nigeria. The findings showed that educational attainment, distance from the farm to the nearest market, cropping patterns, and other factors influenced farmers' adoption of PS. Furthermore, the adoption of PS technology resulted in a 16.98 % boost in farm productivity for PS seed yam farmers compared to their productivity without the technology. It is of the utmost importance that PS adoption be supported by developing tailored training materials for farmers to improve their use of the PS technology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHeliyonSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207