MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395959058 · doi:10.18280/ijsdp.190426

Adoption of Organic Rice Farming in East Kolaka Regency, Indonesia: Factors and Stakeholder Collaboration

2024· article· en· W4395959058 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Putu Arimbawa, I. Made Widana Arsana, La Ode Santiaji Bande, Hartina Batoa, Yani Taufik, Safril Kasim

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Development and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStakeholderAgricultureBusinessRice farmingOrganic farmingEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningGeographyEnvironmental scienceEconomicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Farmers' motivation towards a new technology is a key factor in the success of a new farming system adoption.The farmers' understanding of environmental functions and other factors determines the successful adoption of an organic lowland rice farming system.We, accompanied by the Bank of Indonesia, tried to help a group of paddy-rice farmers in East Kolaka Regency, Southeast Sulawesi Province, Indonesia, convert from a conventional to an organic rice farming system.Data were collected using surveys through interviews.The case study analysis used in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and non-participatory observation.Using the Theory of Planned Behaviour, we found that farmers' interest in the organic farming system was highly positive.Farmers will decide to implement an organic farming system after seeing other farmers' success, but several factors, including limited policy support, must be resolved.However, adopting the organic rice farming system would be beneficial in increasing production and improving the local agricultural ecosystems.Still, collaborative roles of various stakeholders (e.g., government, universities, and extension workers with a participatory extension approach) were required.Strong collaborations among farmers as actors, extension workers as university-facilitated assistants, and the government as policymakers were essential in adopting technology at the farmer level.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicAgricultural Development and ManagementFrench-language works237,207