MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3111857425 · doi:10.1111/cag.12665

Climate change adaptation in the Canadian wine industry: Strategies and drivers

2020· article· en· W3111857425 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Emilie Jobin Poirier, Ryan Plummer, Gary J. Pickering

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicHorticultural and Viticultural Research
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeAdaptation (eye)WineryContext (archaeology)GlobeExtreme weatherEnvironmental resource managementEcological forecastingBusinessWineClimate change adaptationGlobal warmingGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wine industry is and will continue to be impacted by climate change. The adaptation of vineyards and winery practices is therefore paramount to the success of winegrowing operations around the globe. We surveyed winegrowers across Canada to assess their adaptation status, the strategies they currently use or plan to implement to cope with the effects of climate change, and the drivers that influence the adoption of adaptation measures. We found that Canadian winegrowers are most adapted to weather events associated with precipitation and drought and less adapted to other extreme weather events. Our results also show that winegrowers' concern about climate change exerts a small, but significant, positive effect on both climate change adaptation and the willingness to adapt in the future. Moreover, winegrowers with smaller operations are less likely to be adapted to some weather events associated with climate change. This research provides an overview of the state of climate change adaptation by winegrowers in Canada and supports the implementation of context‐specific adaptations in wine regions throughout the country.

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)0.000
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 score0.267
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennesSame topicHorticultural and Viticultural ResearchFrench-language works237,207