A SURVEY OF CROP RESIDUE BURNING PRACTICES IN MANITOBA
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Crop residue burning has become a concern in the Prairies, Canada due to its adverse impact on human health,the environment, and soil quality. A telephone survey was conducted in 2001 to investigate crop residue burning situationson farms in four rural municipalities of Manitoba, Canada. The survey questionnaire included 45 questions developed toidentify the types and the percentage of producers who used burning as a crop residue management practice. Of the 84 eligiblerespondents, 47% practiced or possibly practiced crop residue burning. The motivating factors included the timeliness of fieldoperations, such as fall tillage, fall fertilizer application and spring seeding, lower cost for residue disposal, increased cropyield, and better control of weeds and crop diseases. The survey also selectively gathered information on producers and farmsbackground, crop, field equipment and farming practices, as these factors were expected to have impacts on the choice ofcrop residue management practices. Data show likelihood of reducing burning when producers practice longer crop rotations,use low disturbance disc-type seeding tools, and apply fertilizer in the spring. Education and awareness that leads producersaway from the traditional crop residue burning practices may be started for young producers and large farms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it