MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197530115 · doi:10.1080/17477778.2021.1970487

Assessing the consequences of second-generation bioenergy crops for grain/livestock farming on the Canadian prairies: An agent-based simulation

2021· article· en· W3197530115 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Leigh C. Anderson, Richard A. Schoney, James Nolan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Simulation · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioenergy crop production and management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanCredit Valley Hospital
FundersNatural Resources Canada
KeywordsAgricultureAgricultural economicsLivestockSpillover effectMarginal landEnergy cropBiofuelBioenergyBusinessNatural resource economicsAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceAgricultural scienceEconomicsGeographyBiotechnologyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In North America, alternative energy policies have been mostly focused on first-generation biofuels. There is continued development of second-generation biofuels (SGB), crops founded upon low-value feedstocks thriving on marginal (low quality) land. SGB’s alter the farming decision environment since they do not compete directly with high-value annual crops. To examine possible future consequences of SGB’s on mixed farming, we develop anagent-based simulation model (ABM) of a major agricultural region in Western Canada. If energy prices for SGB’s rise high enough, there will likely be structural changes in the sector. Farmers with significant quantities of marginal land experience the greatest benefit adopting energy crops. Spillover effects of energy crop adoption will also be felt in the beef industry since cattle numbers will be gradually reduced. Simulation results also indicate that beef farmers are better off with SGB crops since energy crops stabilise farm income as average farm size decreases.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of SimulationSame topicBioenergy crop production and managementFrench-language works237,207