MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119724346 · doi:10.1017/s1074070800003114

Factors Influencing Wheat Yield and Variability: Evidence from Manitoba, Canada

2009· article· en· W2119724346 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard Carew, Elwin G. Smith, Cynthia A. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Applied Economics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYield (engineering)CultivarAgronomyFertilizerWinter wheatEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationNitrogen fertilizerBiodiversityDiversity (politics)BiologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Production functions to explain regional wheat yields have not been studied extensively in the Canadian prairies. The objective of this study is to employ a Just-Pope production function to examine the relationship between fertilizer inputs, soil quality, biodiversity indicators, cultivars qualifying for Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR), and climatic conditions on the mean and variance of spring wheat yields. Using regional-level wheat data from Manitoba, Canada, model results show nitrogen fertilizer, temporal diversity, and PBR wheat cultivars are associated with increased yield variance. Mean wheat yield is reduced by the proportion of land in wheat, the interaction of growing temperature and precipitation, and spatial diversity. By contrast, higher soil quality and PBR wheat cultivars increase mean yield. The wheat yield increases attributed to PBR range from 37.2 (1.4%) to 54.5 kg/ha (2.0%). Plant Breeders' Rights may have enhanced royalties from increased certified seed sales, but the benefits in terms of higher wheat yield or lower yield variability are limited. Future research is required to understand the interactive effects of fertilization practices, genetic diversity, and environmental conditions on regional wheat yield stability.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 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

Citations84
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207