The Scott alternative cropping systems study: background and treatment structure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 20 years grain crop production on the Canadian prairies has experienced the adoption of minimum tillage practises and extended cropping rotations that incorporate an ever increasing diversity of crops. This change has been driven in part by long term rotation studies revealing soil erosion and degradation with mechanical tillage and numerous short term studies that document the benefits of diverse cropping systems. Change has been accelerated in recent years as producers faced with the challenge of depressed grain prices adopt technological change, respond to consumer demands, and reduce inputs in an attempt to remain profitable. These changes in farm management practices while having short term economic objectives also have long term implications for the environment, production sustainability, and food safety. While long term studies in the past have generally compared components of production systems such as rotations or soil amendments, a long term multidisciplinary cropping system study initiated at Scott in 1994 is based on a comparison of different cropping systems. To evaluate the sustainability of arable crop production on the Canadian Prairies the study incorporates three levels of inputs (Organic, Reduced, High) and three levels of cropping diversity (low, diverse annual grains, diverse annual forage) in a six year rotation cycle. This paper is the first in a series of papers discussing results from the first 6 year cycle. This document provides an introduction to the issue of sustainable agricultural crop production with a focus on the objectives, experimental design of the study, and management practices within each of the systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".