MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607097942 · doi:10.5539/jas.v9n5p107

Carbon Dioxide Equivalent Emissions of Newly Developed Rice Varieties

2017· article· en· W2607097942 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seied Mohsen Taghavi, T. C. Mendoza, Bart Acero, Tao Li, Sameer Ali Siddiq, Jose M. Yorobe, Zhikang Li, Jauhar Ali

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceAgronomyRice strawCarbon dioxideStrawYield (engineering)AgricultureProduction (economics)BiologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breeding of rice varieties with low carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) emission is essential in reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In this study, we compared the gross CO2e emission of two newly developed green super rice (GSR) varieties with elite hybrids and nationally released farmer-cultivated varieties from production to post-production in the dry and wet seasons in Laguna, Philippines. The average gross CO2e emission was 17.9 tons CO2e ha-1 or 2.98 tons CO2e ton-1 rice (production 82%, post-production 18%). Contributing to this total were soil emissions at 72%, the use of chemicals at 5%, burning of rice straw at 3%, cooking at 12%, and transportation at 5%. The average social cost of carbon (SCC) per ton of rice was estimated at $119. Increasing grain yield per unit area with shorter growth duration decreased CO2e emission of rice per unit of weight. Cultivation of rice varieties GSR8 and GSR2 emitted 37.0% lower CO2e than the popular inbred varieties.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207