MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1536309028 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.10249

An Economic Evaluation of Beneficial Management Practices for Crop Nutrients in Canadian Agriculture

2007· article· en· W1536309028 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Beth Sparling, Cher Brethour

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexBusinessAgricultureNutrient managementRevenueAgricultural scienceTillageProsperityAgricultural economicsEnvironmental scienceEconomicsAgronomyGeographyEconomic growthFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental risk management is the process of measuring and/or assessing environmental risk and developing strategies to manage it. One strategy used in Canadian agriculture to manage environmental risk is the implementation of beneficial management practices (BMPs). This paper provides a summary of a larger research project which explored farm profitability before and after participation in beneficial management practices, specifically those related to crop nutrients. Based on producer perceptions and the assumptions used in this analysis, the results of this study indicate that the majority of the selected BMPs, including soil testing, minimum tillage, no-till and nutrient management planning, improved profitability for the representative farms. The profitability of farms using variable rate fertilization depended on the crop grown and the province in which the BMP was practiced. In all cases, the models suggested that buffer strips reduced expected net revenue. To maximize profitability, a producer needs to consider all aspects of their farm. Prosperity will depend not only on applying best practices to their operation, but to the environment as well.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.814
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207