Factors That Affect the Adoption Decision of Conservation Tillage in the Prairie Region of Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of conservation tillage technology since the 1970s has been one of the most remarkable changes in the production of crops on the Canadian Prairies. The decision whether to adopt conservation tillage technology or not requires the producer to go through a thorough decision‐making process. In Canada, there has been little economic research on the question of what farm, regional, and environmental characteristics affect the adoption decision. Using 1991, 1996, and 2001 Census of Agriculture data together with other data sources we estimate a probit model explaining the adoption decision. We find that important variables include farm size, proximity to a research station, type of soil, and weather conditions. La pratique du semis direct depuis les années 1970 constitue l'un des changements les plus notables de la production des cultures dans les Prairies canadiennes. Avant de décider d'adopter ou non cette pratique, le producteur doit s'engager dans un processus rigoureux de prise de décisions. Au Canada, peu d'études économiques se sont penchées sur les caractéristiques agricoles, régionales et environnementales qui influencent la décision d'adopter ou non. Au moyen des données tirées du Recensement de l'agriculture de 1991, 1996 et 2001, combinées à d'autres sources de données, nous avons estimé un modèle probit pour expliquer la décision d'adopter ou non. Nous avons estimé que les variables importantes incluent la taille de l'exploitation, la proximité d'une station de recherche, le type de sol et les conditions météorologiques.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it