MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396618790 · doi:10.5376/ijh.2024.14.0010

Economics of Production and Marketing for French Bean in Kalikot District (Tilagupha Municipality), Nepal

2024· article· en· W4396618790 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Susma Adhikari, Arati Chapai, Shova Shrestha, Nisha Bhandari, Prativa Acharya, Kiran Thapa, Sashi Kumar Keshari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Horticulture · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPineapple and bromelain studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)GeographyBusinessAgricultural economicsAgroforestryEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research, conducted from February to July 2023 in Tilagupha municipality, Kalikot, Nepal, focused on French bean production and marketing.Sixty participants were surveyed using a stratified sampling technique.Primary data, gathered through household surveys, interviews, and field visits revealed insights into the agricultural landscape.Bean cultivation occurs once a year on small farms averaging 17.16 ropani, with 30.33% of land dedicated to beans.The average yield was 658.2 kg/ha, below the reported ADO Kalikot figure (1477 kg/ha).Production cost was Rs. 21,054.7 per ropani, with a return of Rs. 75,240 and a benefit-cost ratio of 1.20.Most producers (61.3%) were satisfied with bean prices.Challenges included diseases, pests, lack of irrigation, and limited marketing information, obtained mostly from neighbors (94.8%).The average retail price was Rs. 250 per kg, with a marketing margin of Rs. 78.34 per kg.Lack of market information was a significant issue in bean marketing.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HorticultureSame topicPineapple and bromelain studiesFrench-language works237,207