Accuracy and Trade-Offs of Yield Estimation Techniques in Smallholder Farms in Sub-Saharan Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate measurement of crop yields in smallholder farming systems, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, is a pressing issue for agricultural research. Despite the widespread use of crop yield data in farm research and policymaking, there are significant challenges in generating valuable and accurate data regarding quality, quantity, and reliability, particularly in sub-Saharan African agriculture. The methodological choice of different yield estimation approaches and their suitability for context-specific settings is also not well understood. This review addresses these gaps by providing a comprehensive and qualitative overview of widely applied yield estimation approaches for grains in smallholder agriculture and analysing their trade-offs and suitability for context-specific farming systems. Additionally, key factors influencing the accuracy and variability of yield estimates in smallholder farms are discussed. By analysing these factors, this paper provides valuable insights for establishing benchmarks in crop production within smallholder farming systems, which is essential for making informed recommendations and decisions in agricultural research. The findings of this review are crucial for informing agricultural research and guiding decision-making, thereby contributing to the improvement of smallholder farming systems in sub-Saharan Africa.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".