MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054313919 · doi:10.2134/jeq2001.303798x

Pesticide Risk Reduction on Crops in the Province of Ontario

2001· article· en· W2054313919 on OpenAlexaffabout
G. James Gallivan, G. A. Surgeoner, Joseph K. Kovach

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Quality · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPesticideHectarePesticide residueToxicologyEnvironmental scienceAgronomyAgricultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyzed the changes in pesticide use and risk in the Province of Ontario, Canada, from 1973 to 1998 to monitor the success of Food Systems 2002, a program to reduce pesticide use by 50%. Pesticide risk was calculated by multiplying the amount of pesticide used (kilograms of active ingredient) by the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ), a score for the potential risk of pesticides to farmworkers, consumers, and the environment. Pesticide use increased by 46% from 1973 to 1983. From 1983, the baseline year for Food Systems 2002, to 1998, pesticide use decreased by 38.5% and risk declined 39.5%. The reductions in pesticide use and risk were primarily on corn (Zea mays L.) and tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.), the crops with the highest pesticide use in 1983. Total pesticide use on soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] did not change, but the mean application rate (kg ha(-1)) decreased by 57%. Corn and soybean account for 65% of pesticide use, but have a relatively low pesticide use and risk per hectare and per tonne of production. Total pesticide use on tobacco, fruits, and vegetables was lower than on corn or soybean, but the pesticide use and risk per hectare were much higher. Small reductions in pesticide use on corn and soybean may allow a 50% reduction in pesticide use, but greater reductions in risk can be achieved by reducing the use of "high risk" pesticides on fruit and vegetables.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 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

Citations44
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental QualitySame topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207