MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The rise of specialty crops in Saskatchewan, 1981–2001

2004· article· en· W1999336985 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
William J. Carlyle

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyAgricultureAgricultural economicsCropGeographyAgricultural scienceAgroforestryProduction (economics)BusinessEconomicsForestryEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Specialty crops have risen from being of little to great importance in Saskatchewan agriculture over the past 20 years. Many interrelated factors have contributed to this change. These factors are analysed using a food supply system model that involves inputs, on‐farm production variables, research and linkages to farmers, contracting, transportation and processing and market development for specialty crops. Specialty crops, especially the dominant trio of pulse crops, dry field pea, lentil and chickpea, reduce input costs, have proved to be agronomically suitable to fill much of the land made available through the decline of spring wheat and summerfallow in Saskatchewan, have benefited from research and its transfer to farmers and farmers' producer groups, are transported to local or regional processors and have benefited from the development of domestic and foreign markets. Specialty crops as a group tended to be relatively more important in 2001 in the Brown and Dark Brown than the Black and Grey soil zones, although each main specialty crop displayed a distinct geographical pattern.

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)0.000
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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.171 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennesSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207