MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133118804 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.18819834

Methodological Evaluation of Smallholder Farms Systems in Ethiopia Using Panel Data for Efficiency Measurement

2005· article· en· W7133118804 on OpenAlexaff
Yared Tekleab, Kassa Assefa, Mekuria Debela

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanel dataProduction (economics)EstimationData collectionRandom effects modelEstimatorAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smallholder farms in Ethiopia face significant challenges in optimising their production processes to enhance efficiency gains. This systematic literature review employs a comprehensive search strategy across relevant databases including EconLit, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Studies published between and are included, with an emphasis on methodologies that utilise panel data for efficiency measurement in Ethiopian smallholder farming systems. Panel-data estimation techniques have shown varying degrees of effectiveness in measuring efficiency gains among smallholder farms, with some studies indicating improvements up to a 30% reduction in production costs when using robust standard errors and adjusted for potential sources of bias. The findings suggest that the adoption of mixed-effects models combined with fixed effects estimators yields more reliable results compared to pure random effects models, particularly in contexts where time-invariant variables are likely to be present. Recommendation is made for further empirical studies incorporating larger datasets and longitudinal data collection methods to validate these findings. Policy recommendations aimed at improving resource allocation and training programmes should also be considered. Model estimation used $\hat{\theta}=argmin_{\theta}\sum_i\ell(y_i,f_\theta(x_i))+\lambda\lVert\theta\rVert_2^2$, with performance evaluated using out-of-sample error.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.138
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1380.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.911
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSimulation or modeling · Observational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207