MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2192375434 · doi:10.5539/jas.v8n1p139

Future Arable Land Requirement of Pig Production in China

2015· article· en· W2192375434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaolei Liu, Xuefeng Cui, Reshmita Nath

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInternational Fine Particle Research InstituteWorld Bank Group
KeywordsArable landDivisia indexAgricultural economicsChinaProduction (economics)Agricultural sciencePopulationNatural resource economicsConsumption (sociology)Pig ironEnvironmental scienceBusinessEnvironmental protectionGeographyEconomicsAgricultureEnergy consumptionEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

China’s pig industry is experiencing a dramatic increase to meet increasing consumption demand. How these changes influence the limited arable land resources through consuming grain as feed has not been clearly understood. In this manuscript, we calculate the arable land requirement for pig industry (LRP) from 2001 to 2013 and forecast future demand towards 2050 from the point of production, in order to quantify the pressure in different scenarios. The results indicate that the LRP has increased from 22.0 Million Ha in 2001 to 31.6 Million Ha in 2013. LRP will be 23.7-29.4 Million Ha in 2030 and 11.6-18.7 Million Ha in 2050 according to different scenarios. Logarithmic Mean Divisia Index (LMDI) decomposition method is assessed to the effect of population, consumption and technology for three time periods e.g. 2010-2030; 2030-2050 and 2010-2050. And technology will become primary reason. These findings could help optimizing the relationships between limited arable land resources and development of pig industry, and promote sustainable development of the pig industry.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural Science→Same topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact→French-language works237,207→