Beer, barley, livestock, milk: Who adopts agricultural innovations in rural Rajasthan?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Socio-economic hierarchies often shape the benefits of agricultural innovations. • Research mainly focuses on Green Revolution crops like rice, maize, and wheat. • Little is known about socio-economic impacts on other crops, livestock, and their interactions. • Our Rajasthan study explored barley farming and livestock rearing. • Poorer farmers and women can benefit if innovations are first adopted by wealthier men. Research conducted in developing countries in the past 50 years generally suggests that most agricultural innovations (whether technological, social, or financial in nature) end up reinforcing existing socio-economic hierarchies based on gender and class. Most of these findings are drawn from the Green Revolution, which focused overwhelmingly on high-yielding varieties of rice, maize, and wheat, along with the introduction or expansion of irrigation and extension services and the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Less is known about how agricultural innovations involving other crops or livestock, especially if introduced in tandem, perform in alleviating poverty or reducing gender inequality. We conducted a study in three agricultural communities in rural Rajasthan, India to understand how the adoption of agricultural innovations for barley cultivation and livestock rearing are influenced by the gender, age, and class background of farmers, and whether such innovations can alleviate poverty and promote gender equality in rural settings. We found that although innovation adoption is influenced by gender, class and age (with gender exerting a stronger influence than class or age), poorer farmers and women can under certain circumstances benefit from agricultural innovations adopted initially by wealthier male farmers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".