The economic value of sustainable soil management
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Soil quality is an important determinant of agricultural productivity, farm resilience and environmental quality. Despite its importance, the incorporation of sustainable soil management in economic models is lacking. This study approaches farmers as decision makers on soil management. Sustainable soil management may be an investment that goes at the expense of short-term returns but increases future soil quality. Hence, the key problem is economic: establishing long-term sustainable soil management at a minimized loss of income. In this study, we define the Economic Value of Land () as the cumulative returns of a piece of land over a period in time. Maximum long-term is obtained if a soil's potential is maximally utilized in a sustainable way. From this follows that the Economic Value of Sustainable soil Management () is defined as the difference between a sustainable and unsustainable . To acquire a fundamental understanding of , agronomic and technical factors must be integrated with economics. Production management, the complete set of physical and non-physical inputs is the primary determinant of future soil quality and hence . Maximizing first requires a fundamental understanding of soil quality management: What are the properties of soil quality and how are these influenced by crop production? Subsequently, production management has to be organized in such a way is maximized. This study provides an overview of soil quality management and crop production management linked to economics. The framework provides a qualitative blueprint for bio-economic modeling and a basis for policies to enhance sustainable soil management.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it