MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2577559449 · doi:10.5539/jas.v9n2p234

Factors Affecting Farmer’s Chemical Fertilizers Consumption and Water Pollution in Northeastern Iran

2017· article· en· W2577559449 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Hosein Mohammadi, Abdolhamid Moarefi Mohammadi, Solmaz Nojavan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWastewater Treatment and Reuse
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollutionAgricultureIrrigationEnvironmental scienceWater resourcesIncentiveWater pollutionWater resource managementAgricultural economicsAgricultural scienceEnvironmental protectionBusinessGeographyEconomicsAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollution by fertilizers containing nitrogen is one of the most significant sources of water pollution, and agriculture sector has a considerable share in this type of pollution. In this study, factors affecting the level of contamination of surface and underground water resources by agricultural activities were examined. Data of 254 wheat farmers in the plain of Mashhad in Khorasan Razavi province in Iran were used for investigating the effect of some explanatory variables on the level of water pollution utilizing Ordered Logit Regression Model. The results show that main activity of farmers, years of experience, the level of education, awareness of organic farming, level of income, price of fertilizers and irrigation method have significant effect on the amount of fertilizers utilized by farmers and hence the level of water resources pollution. Efforts for decreasing pollution of water resources require strategies such as changing the main activity of farmers, increase the cost of using chemical fertilizers, create economic incentives for organic farming, and increase general information and knowledge of farmers.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.262

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicWastewater Treatment and ReuseFrench-language works237,207