Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Trends in EU agricultural policies recognize an increasingly important role to biodiversity conservation and use in agroecosystems, including organic ones. However, along with their economic success, organic systems are facing a risk of ‘conventionalization’, i.e. the prevalence of input substitution over agroecologically-based crop management. Understanding what is functional agrobiodiversity and when it can be successfully applied in organics may help strengthen the recognition of organic farming as the reference management system for agricultural sustainability. Here functional agrobiodiversity is defined as a subset of total biodiversity identified at the gene, species or habitat level able to deliver a given agroecosystem service, which extent increases with diversity in the functional group. Different functional agrobiodiversity categories are identified, compared to biofunctionality, and used to illustrate the mechanisms through which they can support agroecosystem services and consequently sustainability. Three case studies taken from the author’s own research are used as examples to illustrate functional agrobiodiversity’s potential in organic systems as well as open questions. Results show that (i) functional agrobiodiversity has potential to support agroecosystem services but it is not possible to generalize the effects; (ii) a given functional biodiversity element may create conflicts between different target agroecosystem services. In those cases, prioritization of services is required.</p>
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".