MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386336536 · doi:10.1017/s1742170523000339

Effects of cover crop, N and residue management on the financial sustainability of processing tomatoes in Southwestern Ontario

2023· article· en· W4386336536 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jamison Kerr, Aaron De Laporte, Alfons Weersink, Richard J. Vyn, Laura L. Van Eerd

Bibliographic record

VenueRenewable Agriculture and Food Systems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCover cropAgronomyResidue (chemistry)FertilizerSustainabilityCrop residueCropField experimentMathematicsEnvironmental scienceBiologyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Given the potential environmental and economic sustainability consequences of cover crop adoption, N fertilizer application, and residue management, this study focuses on the yield and financial effects of these on processing tomato production in Ontario, Canada. The study employs financial modeling using field data from a long-term cover crop experiment (oat, cereal rye, radish, and a radish-rye mixture) from 2010 to 2020. Averaged over six experimental years, compared to no cover (87 Mg ha −1 ) radish (99.6 Mg ha −1 ) and radish-rye mix (95.2 Mg ha −1 ) cover crops produce statistically significantly higher tomato yields as isolated practices, increasing farm net returns by $1120 ha −1 and $604 ha −1 , respectively. When combined with N application, rye application additionally results in tomato yields statistically significantly higher than the base practice of no cover crop, zero N application and retained residue. Oat cover does not appear to have a statistically significant effect on tomato yields in this dataset. The application of N fertilizer results in statistically significantly higher tomato yield, increasing net returns by $882 ha −1 , while residue management does not.

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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenewable Agriculture and Food SystemsSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207