Identifying agricultural disaster risk zones for future climate actions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Identifying agricultural disaster risk regions before the occurrence of climate-related disasters is critical for early mitigation planning. This paper aims to identify these regions based on data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the bilateral and multilateral trade network data of the World Integrated Trade Solution(WITS) and the agent-based economic model Acclimate. By applying a uniform forcing across agricultural sectors of some breadbasket regions (US, EU and China), when single and simultaneous extreme weather events occur, such as the 2018 European heatwave, production and consumption value losses and gains are calculated at regional and global levels. Comparing the FAO data sets, WITS, and Acclimate's production value losses, the results show a strong dependence of agricultural production losses on a region's output and connectivity level in the global supply and trade network. While India, Brazil, Russia, Canada, Australia, and Iran are highly vulnerable, the imposition of export restrictions to compensate for demand shortfalls makes Sub-Saharan Africa the most vulnerable region, as it is heavily dependent on agricultural imports. In addition, simultaneous extreme weather events can exacerbate the loss of value of agricultural production relative to single extreme weather events. Agricultural practices to increase production such as smart farming, increased investment in plantation agriculture, and diversification of trading partners can help mitigate future food security risks in Sub-Saharan Africa and other agricultural import-dependent regions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".