MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4389298219 · doi:10.1111/cjag.12342

Spatial optimization of nutrient reduction measures on agricultural land to improve water quality: A coupled modeling approach

2023· article· en· W4389298219 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Roy Brouwer, Rute Pinto, Jorge Andres Garcia, Xingtong Li, Merrin L. Macrae, Predrag Rajsic, Wanhong Yang, Yongbo Liu, Mark Anderson, Louise Heyming

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphToronto and Region Conservation AuthorityEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBaseline (sea)Soil and Water Assessment ToolEnvironmental scienceBuffer stripWatershedIncentiveSurface runoffAgricultureWater qualityNonpoint source pollutionEutrophicationNutrient pollutionPaymentBusinessNutrientStreamflowDrainage basinComputer scienceEconomicsEcologyGeographyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this study is to identify the optimal spatial distribution of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce total phosphorus (TP) runoff from agricultural land in the largest Canadian watershed draining into Lake Erie, the Great Lake most vulnerable to eutrophication. BMP measures include reduced fertilizer application, cover crops, buffer strips, and the restoration of wetlands. Environmental SWAT model results feed into a spatial optimization procedure using two separate objective functions to distinguish between public BMP program implementation costs (PIC) on the one hand and farmers’ private pollution abatement costs (PAC) on the other hand. The latter account for the opportunity costs of land retirement and changing land productivity. PAC are initially lower than PIC but exceed the latter after 30% of the annual TP baseline load is eliminated. This suggests that under optimal conditions existing grant and incentive payments cover the economic costs farmers face up to a maximum of 30% of the baseline load reduction. Imposing further reductions of up to 40% results in a cost to farmers of almost $52 million per year. This is 45% higher than the optimal solution based on PIC and therefore not deemed incentive‐compatible under the watershed's existing cost‐sharing scheme.

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)0.001
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 score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.152 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie→Same topicSoil and Water Nutrient Dynamics→French-language works237,207→