MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974813542 · doi:10.1017/s0021859613000142

Weather effects on maize yields in northern China

2013· article· en· W1974813542 on OpenAlexaff
Baojing Sun, G. Cornelis van Kooten

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Agricultural Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicClimate change impacts on agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureClimate changePrecipitationIrrigationDegree (music)ChinaEnvironmental scienceGrowing degree-dayCropAgricultural economicsHeating degree dayMathematicsAgricultural engineeringGeographyAgronomyEconomicsMeteorologyEcologyForestryPhenologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY In the present study, the effect of weather on maize yields in northern China was examined using data from 10 districts in Inner Mongolia and two in Shaanxi province. A regression model with a flexible functional form was specified on the basis of agronomic considerations. Explanatory variables included in the model were seasonal growing degree days, precipitation, technological change (e.g. adoption of new crop varieties, improved equipment, better management, etc.) and dummy variables to account for regional fixed effects. Results indicated that a fractional polynomial model in growing degree days could explain variability in maize yields better than a linear or quadratic model. Growing degree days, precipitation in July, August and September, and technological changes were important determinants of maize yields. The results could be used to predict potential maize yields under future climate change scenarios, to construct financial weather products and for policy makers to incentivize technological changes and construction of infrastructure (e.g. irrigation works) that facilitate adaptation to climate change in the agricultural sector.

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 score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicClimate change impacts on agricultureFrench-language works237,207