MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1892990250 · doi:10.1111/cjag.12087

Environmental Stewardship and Technical Efficiency in Canadian Prairie Canola Production

2015· article· en· W1892990250 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Ali D. Cagdas, Scott R. Jeffrey, Elwin G. Smith, Peter C. Boxall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAgriculture Food and Rural Development
FundersCanola Council of Canada
KeywordsCanolaInefficiencyProduction (economics)AgricultureStewardship (theology)Agricultural scienceAgricultural economicsEnvironmental scienceComplementarity (molecular biology)BusinessCroppingEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsGeographyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines beneficial management practice (BMP) adoption and technical efficiency for canola producers in the Canadian Prairie Provinces. A Just‐Pope stochastic frontier production function is estimated using data from a survey of canola producers. Yield is modeled as a function of nutrients and precipitation. A linear inefficiency function includes farm specific variables and a set of binary variables representing BMP adoption. BMP variables for nutrient management planning and precision farming are positively related to technical efficiency while results for the other BMP indicators are mixed. Model estimates appear to be significantly influenced by moisture problems that occurred through the Prairie region during the 2011 cropping year. The study results suggest that for Western Canadian canola producers, there is potential complementarity for some BMPs in terms of improving technical efficiency while simultaneously advancing environmental stewardship.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.147 · 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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207