MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1519086827

An economic analysis of afforestation on agricultural land in east central Saskatchewan

2003· article· en· W1519086827 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Desmond Jay Sobool

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Library - University of Saskatchewan (University of Saskatchewan) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAfforestationAgricultureAgricultural landGeographyForestryArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The economic viability of farming in Saskatchewan is eroding and the future of the industry is becoming uncertain given the current economic state. The combination of low commodity prices, increasing input and transportation costs, ongoing drought conditions, inadequate safety net programs, and environmental concerns resulting from agricultural greenhouse gas emissions has led to this uncertainty. One possible solution for producers to help overcome or at least minimize the negative trends occurring in agriculture, which is proposed, is afforestation of agricultural land. Afforestation not only provides net private benefits of timber income but external benefits, including carbon sequestration, and preservation of native forests, which provides areas for hunting, wildlife viewing, and conservation of land. The economic efficiency of afforestation was examined using a transitional benefit cost framework for both crop and pasture systems. This allowed for both private and social perspectives, along with the opportunity costs, to be included and the economic efficiency of afforestation from each perspective was determined. The potential conversion of agricultural land to afforestation was based solely on economic efficiency and assumed producers demonstrated an economically rational decision making process. The results from the benefit cost analysis indicated that the net private benefits from afforestation were never significant enough to warrant the conversion of either crop or pasture systems to afforestation. The results did however show that the net social benefits from afforestation would warrant the conversion of crop systems to afforestation for a limited number of situations. Crop systems on physically marginal land with a carbon payment of either $22.58 or $33.55 tonne of C would warrant conversion to afforestation, using either a single or infinite rotation. The infinite rotation resulted in a larger allocation of land to afforestation. The role afforestation can play in helping producers diversify and increase income levels is limited. The low price paid for timber and the high costs of establishment for afforestation are the main constraints. In order for afforestation to become economically efficient on a large scale the constraints facing producer’s needs to be addressed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.150
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Library - University of Saskatchewan (University of Saskatchewan)Same topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207