MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060728527 · doi:10.1111/1475-4959.00041

Cropping patterns in the Canadian Prairies: thirty years of change

2002· article· en· W2060728527 on OpenAlexafffundabout
William J. Carlyle

Bibliographic record

VenueGeographical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of WinnipegUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsCanolaAgronomyCroppingCropGeographyCensusBiologyAgriculturePopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Changes in cropping patterns in the Canadian Prairies are examined from the early 1960s to the mid‐1990s using census data. Patterns of change within the region are mapped by census division using averaged proportions of land in crops occupied by the main crops for three pairs of census years. Spring wheat and oat have undergone the most significant relative declines. Canola increased dramatically from being the sixth‐ranked crop by area in the early 1960s to the third‐ranked crop by area by the 1990s. The main change in the Brown soil zone has been a large decline in spring wheat and a compensatory gain in durum wheat. Increases in special crops, especially pulse crops, canola and durum wheat have offset a substantial decline in spring wheat in the Dark Brown soil zone. Barley, tame hay and especially canola have increased at the expense of spring wheat, oat and flaxseed in the Black and Gray soil zones. Prices, transportation costs, changing export markets, crop breeding and local processing all have contributed to these changes.

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)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations16
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeographical JournalSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207