MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939259683

Milieubelasting per eenheid product in de glastuinbouw 2004-2016

2017· article· nl· W2939259683 on OpenAlexaff
J.S. Buurma, R.W. van der Meer

Bibliographic record

VenueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) · 2017
Typearticle
Languagenl
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

heeft geboekt op het gebied van verduurzaming van het gewasbeschermingsmiddelengebruik.LTO Glaskracht Nederland en de Stichting Programmafonds Glastuinbouw hebben daarom aan Wageningen Economic Research opdracht gegeven om de milieubelasting door de emissie van chemische gewasbeschermingsmiddelen vanuit de glastuinbouw te vertalen naar milieubelasting per eenheid product.Om aansluiting te krijgen bij de tastbare werkelijkheid van de consument, is 'eenheid product' in deze factsheet uitgewerkt als 'verpakkingseenheid in het winkelschap'.De beschrijving is opgebouwd uit de volgende stappen: de fysieke opbrengsten en de achterliggende databronnen van de hoofdgewassen, de omzetting van fysieke opbrengsten naar verpakkingseenheden, de specificatie van de indicator 'milieubelasting per verpakkingseenheid' en de uitkomsten van de indicator voor enkele belangrijke glastuinbouwproducten in 2004, 2008, 2012 en 2016. Milieubelasting per hectareDe milieubelasting is uitgedrukt in milieubelastingpunten (mbp), een verhoudingsgetal voor de toxiciteit van de gebruikte middelen voor waterorganismen c.q. bodemorganismen.Voor een verdere uitleg wordt verwezen naar factsheet 2018-081b.De gemiddelde milieubelasting per ha van de hoofdgewassen is samengevat in tabel 1.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.214
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData Archiving and Networked Services (DANS)Same topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207