MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2234501468 · doi:10.2495/si100171

Modelling the adoption of different types of irrigation water technology in Alberta, Canada

2010· article· en· W2234501468 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Ann Wheeler, Henning Bjørnlund, Thomas Christian Olsen, K. K. Klein, Lorraine A. Nicol

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on ecology and the environment · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicIrrigation Practices and Water Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIrrigationIrrigation managementBusinessProduction (economics)Variety (cybernetics)Environmental scienceWater resource managementWater conservationAgricultural engineeringAgricultural economicsEnvironmental economicsEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsComputer scienceEconomicsEngineeringAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper analyses farmers' adoption of hard and soft technology in relation to irrigation technologies, production changes and water management changes in Alberta, Canada. Greater significance was found in modelling the adoption of hard technology (such as irrigation infrastructure technologies) than modelling the adoption of soft technology (water management or irrigation area changes). Overall, some of the most important influences include farm size, irrigation technology, off-farm income and being a member of an irrigation district. Few socio-economic variables were found to be important. Adoption of soft technology most likely leads to greater water efficiencies and in the future greater attention should be paid to a wider variety of factors and influences in order to model water management and trading behaviour.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.962

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT transactions on ecology and the environmentSame topicIrrigation Practices and Water ManagementFrench-language works237,207