MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392721011 · doi:10.1007/s44248-024-00008-0

Canadian agriculture technology adoption

2024· article· en· W4392721011 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tahmid Huq Easher, Rickard Enstroem, Terry Griffin, Tomas K.H. Nilsson

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Data · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsMacEwan UniversityGovernment of AlbertaOlds College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureBusinessAgricultural economicsGeographyEconomicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objectives Statistics Canada administers the Agricultural Census every 5 years, and this paper presents unsuppressed data from the 2016 and 2021 Census. The data set encompasses detailed information on farm types, sizes, technology choices, and a demographic profile of farm operators from the 2021 Census. Data on farm characteristics and operator demographics is crucial for understanding innovation in agriculture and formulating evidence-based policies. Data description The data sets cover the two most recent agriculture censuses of 2016 and 2021, presenting data on the number of farmers by region, farm type, size, and the adoption of technologies. Additionally, a third data set lists the number of farm operators by age and sex. The census questionnaire inquires about using different technologies, varying the types across the two census periods. Notably, there is no data suppression in these data sets, and they cover all 10 provinces in Canada, excluding the three territories. Farm types are categorized based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), and farm size is measured in acres.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.018
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0360.005

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscover DataSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207