MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394614836 · doi:10.1080/21645698.2024.2335701

An assessment of the linkages between GM crop biotechnology and climate change mitigation

2024· article· en· W4394614836 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart J. Smyth, Peter W.B. Phillips, David Castle

Bibliographic record

VenueGM crops & food · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeAgricultural biotechnologyClimate change mitigationBiotechnologyCommodityAgricultureBusinessEnvironmental resource managementNatural resource economicsEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceBiologyEconomicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article provides an analysis and evaluation of peer-reviewed evidence on the contribution of crop biotechnology to climate change mitigation and adaption. While there is a range of agricultural technologies and products that contribute to climate change mitigation, this literature landscape analysis focuses on the development of genetically modified traits, their use and adoption in major commodity crops and responsive changes in production techniques. Jointly, these technologies and products are contributing to climate change mitigation, yet the technology, the literature and evidence is still evolving as more sophisticated research methods are used with greater consistency. The literature analysis is undertaken with consideration of the consequential impact that regulatory regimes have on technology development. This assessment utilizes the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale and citation analysis, concluding that GM crops provide benefits that contribute to climate change mitigation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGM crops & foodSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207