MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387349444 · doi:10.18174/638953

WUR-perspectieven op landbouw, voedsel en natuur

2023· report· nl· W4387349444 on OpenAlexaff
A.P. Bos, B.C. Breman, P.L. de Wolf, Hans van Meijl, F.A. Geerling-Eiff, Allard Jellema, E.L. de Jonge, J. Dekker, Lennart Fuchs, Daniel Puente-Rodríguez, M. van Ree, Lan van Wassenaer, Marie Wesselink, Seerp Wigboldus

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languagenl
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, Agriculture Analysis
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In het maatschappelijke debat over landbouw, voedsel en natuur gaat het vaak over het halveren van de veestapel en of we de stikstofdoelen in 2030 of 2035 moeten halen. Maar zijn dit wel de goede vragen? Een team onderzoekers van Wageningen Research identificeerde zes dilemma’s op basis van diverse WUR-studies. De keuzes die we als maatschappij ten aanzien van de dilemma’s maken, zijn medebepalend voor de toekomst van landbouw, voedsel en natuur in Nederland.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEnergy, Environment, Agriculture AnalysisFrench-language works237,207