MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014476163 · doi:10.1300/j411v12n01_06

Benefits of Re-Integrating Livestock and Forages in Crop Production Systems

2004· article· en· W2014476163 on OpenAlexaff
E. Ann Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crop Improvement · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivestockAgricultureBusinessProduction (economics)AgroforestrySustainabilityNatural resource economicsSustainable agricultureEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEconomicsEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY Specialization is the foundation of contemporary agriculture, yet until the early decades of the 20th century, enterprise diversity was the norm. As agriculture has become more specialized in the intervening years, yields have increased dramatically, but so too have a range of economic, environmental, and health problems. This contribution presents evidence that specialization is an ecologically dysfunctional design for food production, a thesis which is supported by the predominance of problem-solving research in the contemporary literature. As demonstrated by Louis Bromfield in the 1940s and by organic and sustainable farmers today, the strategic integration of crops and livestock/ forage enterprises avoids many of the problems of specialization, while also capturing economic and ecological synergies denied to specialist producers. In addition to providing human foodstuffs, forage-based livestock production also offers a range of novel opportunities to channel natural processes to the service of humanity, from carbon sequestration and site remediation to non-chemical vegetation management. Key Words: Specializationsoil managementpasturegrazingenvironmentorganic agriculture

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.700
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations27
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crop ImprovementSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207