MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114591760

The GMO experience in North & South America - where to from here?

2003· article· en· W2114591760 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Greg Traxler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultural economicsGenetically modified cropsDistribution (mathematics)GeographyCanolaPrivate sectorEconomic impact analysisCropAgricultural scienceAgroforestryBusinessEnvironmental protectionEconomic growthAgronomyEconomicsBiologyForestry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2003 North and South America (NSAm) accounted for more than 64 million ha, 94%, of total world area planted to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Delivery has occurred almost entirely through the private sector and adoption has been rapid in areas where the crops addressed serious production constraints and where farmers had access to the new technologies. Four countries (USA, Argentina, Brazil and Canada), four crops (soybean, cotton, canola and maize) and two traits (insect resistance and herbicide tolerance) account for the vast majority of the global transgenic area. Colombia, Mexico, Honduras, Uruguay and Paraguay have also planted GMOs. The economic benefits of the diffusion of GMOs have been widely shared among farmers, industry, and consumers despite the fact that the products are patented. The GMOs have had a favorable impact on the environment by facilitating reduced pesticide use and the adoption of conservation tillage. This paper surveys the level and distribution of the economic impacts of GMOs in NSAm to date. Media summary Ninety-four percent of world transgenic crop area is in the Americas. The economic benefits of GMOs have been widely shared among farmers, industry, and consumers.

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 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 score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207