MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Agriculture's Likely Role in Meeting Canada's Kyoto Commitments*

2005· article· en· W1998865375 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alfons Weersink, David J. Pannell, Murray Fulton, Andreas Meyer‐Aurich

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicClimate Change Policy and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenhouse gasCarbon offsetIncentiveAgricultureNatural resource economicsEmissions tradingBusinessOffset (computer science)Kyoto ProtocolDatabase transactionCarbon creditTransaction costAgricultural economicsEconomicsFinanceMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Voluntary adoption of beneficial management practices will be the primary means by which farmers cut net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The offset system will not be a major driver due to (a) the relatively low prices likely to be offered by large final emitters facing an emission cap, (b) discounts applied to those prices for temporary sequestration, (c) the transaction costs and risk premiums associated with signing carbon contracts, and (d) the low elasticity of supply of CO 2 abatement. Although Canadian farmers are likely to participate to only a limited extent in the carbon‐offset market, many will find it profitable to adopt one or more of the BMPs for reducing net GHG emissions. Canadian agriculture is likely to contribute significantly to net emission reductions by voluntarily sequestering carbon due to the adoption of zero till in the last decade, and possibly by cutting fertilizer levels in the next decade. The contribution will be mainly a response to meeting personal economic objectives rather than being induced by direct incentives through the offset program.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.164
Teacher spread0.132 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicClimate Change Policy and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207