MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946938859

The Great Canadian Maple Syrup Consumption

2019· article· en· W2946938859 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher Chan, Elizabeth O'Meara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Interdisciplinary Science Topics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPlant-Derived Bioactive Compounds
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaplePopulationMathematicsBotanyDemographyBiologySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper looks to provide insight on the Canadian stereotype of using and producing maple syrup, investigating if the Canadian production of the sweetener could support each Canadian having maple syrup at breakfast every day for a year. First, it is estimated how much maple syrup would be consumed for a specific age group and sex using suggested daily Calorie (kcal) values and Canadian demographic population estimates. A sample calculation is outlined for males aged 20-24, finding that solely for this age group it would require 6.24x10 4  L of maple syrup for one day’s consumption. This method is then repeated for each age group and sex (see Appendix), then summed and multiplied by 365, getting a final value of 5.11x10 8  L of maple syrup in total for the whole year. Therefore, it was determined that since the annual production of maple syrup in 2017 was only 5.69x10 7  L, it would not be sustainable for every Canadian to have maple syrup at breakfast for an entire year.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.138

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Interdisciplinary Science TopicsSame topicPlant-Derived Bioactive CompoundsFrench-language works237,207