A linear regression model to demonstrate balancing productivity and sustainability for small-scale farmers: A case study in Malawi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adverse climate change effects, specifically droughts, floods, and dry spells, negatively affect agricultural production. The application of several machine learning methods assists with crop production prediction while factoring in these environmental variables. Machine learning is a crucial tool to ensure crop yield estimation, good agricultural planning practices, and effective decision-making, enabling better application of proposed interventions. Ecological intelligence signifies a paradigm shift toward balancing the competing goals of sustainability and productivity. This study aimed to demonstrate efficient agricultural productivity that addresses SDGs 12 (Responsible consumption and production), SDG 13 (Climate action), and SDG 15 (Life on land). The study was carried out in Lilongwe and Dowa districts, Malawi, and compared single and dual crop yields of farmers cultivating the same crop on similar hectarage, and their respective crop value, profitability, and sustainability. The study population comprised 62 (29.7%) male and 140 (70.3%) female farmers. A linear regression model analysis showed the importance and value of both crop yield and ecosystem resilience. The 80:20 train-test ratio split was used to produce good and effective output. Results showed that the dual crop yields of maize and beans were more profitable in comparison to both monocrop beans and maize plots. Male farmers had higher profits and yields than female farmers. These results show that sustainable practices can be incorporated into farming systems and could ensure both profitability and sustainability. However, future research will be done using intensive multiple-cropping and environmentally friendly methods that focus on consistent yields over an extended period.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".