Evaluation of Sustainable Agricultural Development and Policy Optimisation Based on Multilevel Factor Analysis Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sustainable agricultural development is a key component of the rural revitalization strategy, and strengthening the guidance and support for sustainable agricultural development is an inevitable choice for improving agricultural production capacity and realizing rural revitalization. The study constructs an evaluation system of sustainable agricultural development based on four dimensions: economic opportunity, social well-being, environmental quality, and climate action, selects relevant index data of each province from 2004 to 2022, and adopts a multi-level factor analysis method to comprehensively evaluate the sustainable agricultural development as well as the dynamic distribution of 31 provinces in China. The results show that Henan leads other provinces in economic opportunities with a score of 1.21, and Hebei ranks first in social well-being with abundant human resources and policy support. In the level of regional sustainable agricultural development, there is an uneven distribution pattern of “North > Central > South”. From the dynamic distribution of agricultural sustainable development in 31 provinces from 2004 to 2022, it is concluded that the development trend of agricultural sustainable development in China is better, and the gap between provinces has been narrowed. Finally, policy recommendations are put forward based on the situation of agricultural sustainable development to provide reference for the subsequent work on agricultural sustainable development.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".