MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124104254

Where is Risk in Fumigation Choice: Methyl Bromide versus Alternatives?

2015· preprint· en· W3124104254 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Serhat Aşci, John J. VanSickle, Curtiss J. Fry, John E. Thomas

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2015
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicWeed Control and Herbicide Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFumigationYield (engineering)ChloropicrinAgricultural scienceMontreal ProtocolRevenueBusinessEnvironmental scienceAgricultural economicsEconomicsAgronomyOzoneOzone layerChemistryFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phaseout of Methyl Bromide (MBr) required by the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer has decreased its use in soil fumigation in the United States (U.S.). Reduced supplies also increased the price of MBr and affected producers net revenues and its cost effectiveness as a soil fumigant. The phaseout encouraged some producers to switch to available alternatives. Previous studies using partial budget analysis show that some alternatives are more cost effective with higher yields. Nevertheless, the share of crop acreage treated with MBr remains high, especially for tomatoes and strawberries. This study analyzes producers’ risk and risk aversion to construct a more comprehensive yield and economic analysis of the MBr use decision. The data are collected from fresh tomatoes production trials with MBr and alternatives conducted at the Plant Science Research and Education Unit, University of Florida in Citra, FL. The results show that alternative fumigants (especially carbonated Telone C35 with totally impermeable films) are often cost effective and provide higher yields. However, a risk analysis indicates that MBr has lower downside risk and is still preferred by risk averse producers.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.278 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicWeed Control and Herbicide ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207