MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

How Safe Is Organic Farming by Subsistence Farmers from Developing Countries in the Face of Persistent Organic Pollutants in the Environment?

2018· preprint· en· W2883967909 on OpenAlexafffund
Joshua Oluwole Olowoyo, Liziwe Lizbeth Mugivhisa

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsAgriculturePollutantSubsistence agricultureOrganic farmingExtensive farmingEnvironmental scienceManureBusinessEnvironmental protectionAgricultural scienceMixed farmingAgroforestryAgronomyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Organic farming products are fast gaining acceptance from consumers all over the world due to the perceived belief that they are safe for human consumption. In recent years, there has been an increase in the levels of persistent organic and inorganic pollutants in the environment. These pollutants may be found in materials such as sewage sludge, treated wastewater, farmyard manure (human and animal feaces and urine) that are used for organic farming. The present review examined through literature the presence of these emerging pollutants in crops that are cultivated from farming activities practicing organic farming. The review highlighted and documented various pollutants that may be found in crops due to non-compliance with legislation establishing organic farming. The need to develop a robust method for identifying safe products from organic farming was highlighted. The impact of non-compliance and lack of proper education on the peasant farmers practicing backyard farming was also enumerated.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicFood Waste Reduction and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207