MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6988143485

Workshop on implementing the Agricultural Policy Support Facility (APSF)

2009· other· en· W6988143485 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIFPRI E-brary (International Food Policy Research Institute) · 2009
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)AgricultureInternational developmentAgricultural policySustainable developmentChristian ministryPrivate sectorGovernment (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Agricultural Policy Support Facility (APSF) is an initiative to strengthen pro-poor, gender-sensitive, and environmentally sustainable evidence-based policymaking in Nigeria in the areas of rural and agricultural development. The program is facilitated by the Nigeria Strategy Support Program of the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) in collaboration with the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources (FMAWR) and funded by the Canadian International Development Agency. APSF was launched in August 2007, and on September 20, 2007 a workshop was organized that brought together stakeholders to discuss the emerging issues in agriculture policy and the implementation of the APSF. The objectives of this stakeholders workshop were: to discuss the emerging issues for agricultural policy in Nigeria and how APSF can support these issues; to share information on the APSF Program and its initial activities; to receive feedback on these initial activities; and to initiate discussions on year-2 activities. This workshop was held at the Chelsea Hotel in Abuja, Nigeria on September 20 2007. There were more than 70 participants from FMAWR, other ministries and agencies, farmer organizations, development partners, academia, and the private sector (see appendices A and B for the agenda and participants list). The workshop opened with remarks from Ms. Pepple, Permanent Secretary, FMAWR; Ms. Julia Bracken, Head of Cooperation, Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA); and Dr. Shenggen Fan, Division Director, IFPRI. This report provides a brief review of the presentations delivered during the workshop, key comments from the audience, and the next steps.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0040.013
Research integrity0.0110.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0310.006

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIFPRI E-brary (International Food Policy Research Institute)French-language works237,207