MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2290624561 · doi:10.14288/1.0090081

Farmers’ willingness to plant trees on marginal agricultural land in Canada’s grain belt

2009· article· en· W2290624561 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pavel Suchánek

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureAgricultural landAgricultural economicsMarginal landAgroforestryGeographyForestryEnvironmental scienceEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change has been one of the major global environmental concerns to date. Its seriousness supported by many scientists around the world prompted the vast majority of countries to sign the Kyoto Agreement on climate change. In this document Canada committed to a six percent reduction below 1990 level of carbon dioxide emissions by the 2008-2012 commitment period. Canada has expressed its intention to use its extensive land base as a carbon sink by planting trees. However, no data are available on precisely how much of the land can be converted to trees and at what cost. This thesis uses a survey of farmers in the grain-belt region of Canada to investigate the costs of planting trees on marginal agricultural land and estimate the amount of land available for tree planting. The survey proposes a random bid to each farmer for accepting a particular tree-planting contract. Farmers' answers are analyzed using a bivariate probit model that provides an estimate of the mean willingness to accept for each farmer. Regressing the number of acres made available at this bid on the difference between the bid and the mean willingness to accept results in a supply type of schedule that provides a general estimate of the potential for tree planting in Canada for climate change mitigation purposes. The thesis concludes that Canada can rely on offsetting its emissions of carbon dioxide by means of biological mitigation only to a limited extent due to the high cost of compensation to landowners for their land.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.145

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.151
Teacher spread0.146 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207