MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401014850 · doi:10.55559/sjahss.v3i7.377

FIELDS OF SORROWS AND HARVEST: COPING WITH GRIEF, CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOOD SCARCITY IN INDIGENOUS FARMING COMMUNITIES IN NIGERIA

2024· article· en· W4401014850 on OpenAlexaff
Summer Okibe

Bibliographic record

VenueSprin Journal of Arts Humanities and Social Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicClimate change impacts on agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousLivelihoodScarcityCoping (psychology)Climate changeFood securityPsychological interventionAgriculturePsychological resilienceGriefSocioeconomicsEconomic growthPolitical sciencePsychologyEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningGeographySociologySocial psychologyEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores the intertwined challenges of climate change, food scarcity, and emotional grief among indigenous farming communities in Nigeria. As climate change exacerbates food production issues, Indigenous farmers face not only economic hardship but also profound psychological impacts. This research examines the coping mechanisms and resilience strategies employed by these communities. Using a combination of surveys, interviews, and focus groups, the study provides a nuanced understanding of how climate-induced food insecurity affects both the livelihoods and emotional well-being of indigenous farmers. The results reveal a complex web of challenges, emphasizing the need for targeted policy interventions and support systems. The findings points to the importance of integrating mental health support into agricultural and environmental policies. This research contributes to the broader discourse on climate justice, emphasizing the unique vulnerabilities and strengths of indigenous populations in the face of global environmental changes.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 venueSprin Journal of Arts Humanities and Social SciencesSame topicClimate change impacts on agricultureFrench-language works237,207