MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058427991 · doi:10.4141/s01-046

Production of annual crops on the Canadian prairies: Trends during 1976–1998

2002· article· en· W2058427991 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
C. A. Campbell, R.P. Zentner, S. Gameda, B. Blomert, David D. Wall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Soil Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaAgronomyAgricultureCropSoil waterEnvironmental scienceSowingGeographyAgroforestryBiologySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statistics on annual crop production for the Canadian prairies, Canada’s largest agricultural region, were summarized by crop, soil zone, and province for the period 1976-1998. A brief discussion, demonstrating how these data can be used by agronomists and policy analysts to derive other information of interest to society (e.g., how much raw material is available for ethanol or strawboard production, or for C storage in soils), was presented. The results show that land seeded to cereals has remained fairly constant, but there has been a sharp decrease in the summerfallow area, with the rate of decrease on the Canadian prairies being 1.26% yr-1 in the Brown soil zone, 7.5% yr-1 in the Dark Brown, and 14.3% yr-1 in the combined Black, Gray and Dark Gray soil zones. The rate of decline in summerfallow area was greater in Saskatchewan than in Alberta, and Manitoba (Black soils only) for unknown reasons. The decline in summerfallow area was accompanied by a steady increase in oilseed crops, especially canola (Brassica napus L.) and, since 1987, in pulse crops, especially lentil (Lens culinaris Medikus) and dry pea (Pisum satiuum L.). Key Words: Seeded area, summerfallow, oilseeds, pulses, cereals

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.197
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations119
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Soil ScienceSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207