MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2920432055 · doi:10.3390/su11051394

Quantifying Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Rice Yield Gaps in Double-Cropping Systems: A Case Study in Pearl River Delta, China

2019· article· en· W2920432055 on OpenAlexaff
Yahui Guo, Wenxiang Wu, Christopher Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRice Cultivation and Yield Improvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsYield (engineering)Yield gapCroppingAgronomyAgricultureEnvironmental scienceCrop yieldMathematicsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantifying the contributing and limiting factors of yield potential is of vital importance, and the closure of existing yield gaps on currently available agricultural land is regarded as the most effective measure to meet future food demands. In this study, the CERES-Rice model and long-term rice yield records of 12 sites from 1981 to 2010 were combined together to investigate the spatial and temporal distributions of yield potential, yield attainable, yield actual, and yield gaps for double cropping rice in the Pearl River Delta (PRD), China. The evaluated yield potential of all the sites ranged from 7500 to 14,900 kg/ha, while yield attainable was from 6400 to 12,665 kg/ha, and yield actual was from 4000 to 7000 kg/ha. The yield gaps between yield potential and yield actual, yield potential and yield attainable, and yield attainable and yield actual were projected to be 3500 kg/ha, 1400 kg/ha, and 2100 kg/ha, respectively. The decrease of yield potential was due to the increasing temperature for early mature rice and the prolonged sunshine hours for the yield potential of late mature rice, respectively. The social–economic impacts of yield actual were also assessed, and adaptive measures were simulated so that the yield would certainly increase.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicRice Cultivation and Yield ImprovementFrench-language works237,207