MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1936944122

Farm Sustainability Assessment using the IDEA Method. From the concept of farm sustainability to case studies on French farms

2006· preprint· en· W1936944122 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueProdinra (INRA Bordeaux-Aquitaine) · 2006
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsInternational Institute for Sustainable Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityAgricultureHumanitiesGeographyPhilosophyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although many indicator sets have been developed to characterise sustainability, a lack of available methods and operational tools to assess the sustainability of a farm is often reported. The use of specific indicators can be an interesting response if farmers themselves can use them in a process of self-assessment. First, the French IDEA method (Indicateurs de Durabilité des Exploitations Agricoles) of farm sustainability indicators illustrates the scientific approach adopted by authors to translate the concept of farm sustainability into a system of 41 sustainability indicators covering the three dimensions of sustainability. Secondly, some results are presented from different case studies illustrating tests of the IDEA method. Thirdly, the way of building the indicators is discussed on the basis of some results and of feed back from the users As a conclusion, a recent work linking the IDEA method with the national data bases is mentioned.

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.326 · 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