MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754543714 · doi:10.1101/188151

The cost of heat waves and droughts for global crop production

2017· preprint· en· W2754543714 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Zia Mehrabi, Navin Ramankutty

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2017
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGenome British ColumbiaGenome Canada
KeywordsCommodityChinaAgricultural economicsProduction (economics)Baseline (sea)CropAgricultureCrop insuranceAgricultural productivityGeographyHeat waveEnvironmental scienceEconomicsClimate changeFinanceForestryPolitical scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Heat waves and droughts are a key risk to global crop production and quantifying the extent of this risk is essential for insurance assessment and disaster risk reduction. Here we estimate the cumulative production losses of six major commodity groups under both extreme heat and drought events, across 131 countries, over the time period of 1961-2014. Our results show substantial variation in national disaster risks that have hitherto gone unrecognised in regional and global average estimates. The most severe losses are represented by cereal losses in Angola (4.1%), Botswana (5.7%), USA (4.4%) and Australia (4.4%), oilcrop losses in Paraguay (5.5%), pulse losses in Angola (4.7%) and Nigeria (4.8%), and root and tuber losses in Thailand (3.2%). In monetary terms we estimate the global production loss over this period to be $237 billion US Dollars (2004-2006 baseline). The nations that incurred the largest financial hits were the USA ($116 billion), the former Soviet Union ($37 billion), India ($28 billion), China ($10.7 billion) and Australia ($8.5 billion USD). Our analysis closes an important gap in our understanding of the impacts of extreme weather events on global crop production and provides the basis for country relevant disaster risk reduction.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207