MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066178601 · doi:10.1071/ea04152

Capture of agricultural surplus water determines the productivity and scale of new low-rainfall woody crop industries

2005· article· en· W2066178601 on OpenAlexaff
Don Cooper, Graeme Olsen, John R. Bartle

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Experimental Agriculture · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceProductivityAgroforestryAgricultureIrrigationWater useAgronomyGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a conceptual model for estimating the maximum scale of biomass processing industry that may be supported by woody crops grown in the medium and low rainfall agricultural regions of southern Australia. The model integrates paddock scale economics, water capture by woody crops, conversion of water to woody biomass, and estimation of suitable area. It enables estimates to be made of the maximum scale of implementation of commercial woody crops in various climatic regions, and the maximum amount of woody biomass that could be produced commercially within an economic transport distance of a processing facility. To demonstrate the utility of the model, potential biomass supply is estimated for 2 Western Australian wheatbelt towns, Merredin and Narrogin. These estimates are compared with the feedstock requirements of a range of different processing industries. This paper demonstrates that the rate of converting water to biomass and water capture biomass price are key determinants of the potential scale of biomass crops and processing industries in the southern Australian wheat and wool belts and hence the potential contribution of woody crops to dryland salinity management.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations44
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Experimental AgricultureSame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207