A Comparison of the Greenhouse Gas Emissions From the Sheep Industry With Beef Production in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Sheep production in Canada is a small industry in comparison to other livestock systems. Because of the potential for expansion of the sheep industry in Canada, the GHG emissions budget of this industry was assessed in this paper. The GHG emissions from Canadian lamb production were compared with those from the Canadian beef industry using the ULICEES model. The GHG emission intensity of the Canadian lamb industry was 21% higher than lamb production in France and Wales, and 27% higher than northern England. Enteric methane accounts for more than half of the GHG emissions from sheep in Canada. The protein based GHG emission intensity is 60% to 90% higher for sheep than for beef cattle in Canada. The GHG emission intensity for sheep in Eastern Canada is higher than for sheep in Western Canada. Protein based GHG emission intensity is more sensitive to the difference between sheep and beef than LW based emission intensity. This paper demonstrated that protein based GHG emission intensity is a more meaningful indicator for comparing different livestock species than live weight (LW) based GHG emission intensity.</p>
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".