Une démarche pour comparer le coût, l`efficacité et l`acceptabilité de pratiques agricoles respectueuses de l`environnement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To design the restoration plans requested by the EU Water Framework Directive, local regulators need to implement technically designed modifications of farming practices. Their main interest relies on the determination of which modifications are the most appropriate to the local conditions. To help this decision process, a selection grid has been built within the AgriBMPWater project (5th RTD Framework Program). The main interest of this grid is to allow the comparison of different "best management practices" regarding their environmental effectiveness, the associated costs and their acceptability. This paper presents the different steps of the method, some tools that have been used and their technical requirements, illustrates with some results the integrated tool that has been developed and provide keys for interpretation. / Pour élaborer des programmes de restauration de la qualité de l`eau tels que prévus par la Directive cadre européenne sur l`eau, les décideurs locaux sont amenés à promouvoir des modifications de pratiques agricoles, souvent prédéfinies par des techniciens. La question qui se pose est de choisir les modifications les mieux adaptées aux problématiques locales. En appui à ce processus de décision, une grille d`analyse a été élaborée dans le cadre du projet européen AgriBMPWater (5e PCRD). Son originalité est de permettre, aux échelles de gestion des processus, une comparaison entre les « bonnes pratiques agricoles » sur les plans de l`efficacité environnementale, des coûts économiques induits et de leur acceptabilité. Cet article présente les étapes et méthodes de la démarche, les outils et leurs spécifications techniques et illustre avec quelques résultats l`outil développé et les clés pour leur interprétation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".