MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007455817 · doi:10.3138/carto.47.4.1478

Classification of Italian Farms in the FADN Database Combining Climate and Structural Information

2012· article· en· W2007455817 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Giuliano Vitali, Concetta Cardillo, Sergio Albertazzi, Marco Della Chiara, Guido Baldoni, Claudio Signorotti, Antonella Trisorio, Maurizio Canavari

Bibliographic record

VenueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemperate climateArable landGeographyLivestockAgroforestryEuropean unionAgricultural scienceForageAgricultural economicsAgricultureForestryEnvironmental scienceBusinessAgronomyEcologyEconomicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although describing the primary sector of a given country is a common institutional practice, such studies usually offer aggregated information on holding rather than supplying the information required for farm-level simulations. The present study aimed to identify the main typologies of Italian farms from the 2007 database of RICA (the Italian section of the European Union's Farm Accountancy Data Network). Using a hierarchical strategy driven by climates (5) and slopes (3), farms have been grouped by super-structure, described in terms of the presence and extent of primary activities (livestock, farmland use). The resulting picture of Italian farms is based on 35 farm types, the most common of which grow low-input orchards (e.g., olive trees). On the plains in warm climatic areas, low-input orchards and arable crops dominate; in hilly and mountainous areas, mixed farms with forage crops, meadows, ovines, and cattle prevail. In more temperate areas, the most common farm type is based on intensive and field crops (e.g., durum and bread wheat). In temperate hilly and mountain areas, mixed farms combining meadows, woods, and cattle become predominant.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.313

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCartographica The International Journal for Geographic Information and GeovisualizationSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207