MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171298301 · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2021.547301

Building the GLENCOE Platform -Grasslands LENding eConomic and ecOsystems sErvices

2021· article· en· W3171298301 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSustainable Agricultural Systems Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGarron Family Cancer CentreAgencia Nacional de Investigación e Innovación
KeywordsGrazingLivestockSustainabilityEcosystem servicesNatural resourceEcosystemNatural resource managementAgroforestryGrazing pressureGrasslandEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To feed the rising population whilst also preserving ecosystem functions, creative solutions are needed for the ecological intensification of natural grassland-based livestock systems. In Uruguay, natural grasslands are the main nutritional resource for livestock production. In these ecosystems, cattle and sheep graze together all the year round, and grasslands are frequently heavily grazed. Considerable research has been generated concerning grassland management, but there is still no knowledge about the impact of decision rules that supports management actions on long-term ecosystem functioning, at the system level. To meet this deficit, a participatory working group of farmers, researchers, and consultants have developed the GLENCOE platform. This platform is a large-scale facility, supported by INIA-Uruguay, designed to answer the following question: How to intensify the grazing management to improve the sustainability of livestock systems based on natural grasslands? To build the platform three steps were followed: (I) definition of the research problem using a problem tree analysis; (ii) conceptualization of the platform and the design of the grazing systems to be evaluated; and, (iii) spatial allocation of the grazing systems according to the variability of soil, slopes, and seasonal dynamic of vegetation indexes. These criteria were considered across farmlets that were equivalent in the initial stage, allowing causal inferences for the systems trajectories on productive and environmental traits. The platform is composed of three independent farmlets of 50 ha each, where multiparous Hereford cows and Merinos wethers co-graze under three grazing management systems. Each farmlet is managed according to different spatio-temporal decisions of the specific management of vegetation communities, grazing methods, and the stockpile of forage that is allowed by the number of the existing paddocks. Farmlet-1; comprises less decisions (2 paddocks), Farmlet-2; intermediate (8 paddocks), and Farmlet-3; high level of decisions (32 paddocks). This innovative platform will be used as a participatory and interdisciplinary space for research and co-learning of management on processes that can only be observed in long-term evaluations, and at farmlet scale. We expect that this new approach will contribute to the developement and implemention of sustainable grazing management systems in Uruguay.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.188 · 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