MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396855857 · doi:10.1016/j.jia.2024.05.003

Tracing the contribution of cattle farms to methane emissions through bibliometric analyses

2024· article· en· W4396855857 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Integrative Agriculture · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSpecial Fund Project for Science and Technology Innovation Strategy of Guangdong Province
KeywordsMethaneEnvironmental scienceTracingMethane emissionsEnvironmental chemistryBiologyChemistryComputer scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methane contributes to global warming, and livestock is one of the sources of methane production. However, methane emission studies using bibliometric tools in livestock are lacking. Given the negative impact of climate change on the ecosystem and the rise in methane emissions, it is essential to conduct a bibliometrics study to provide an overview and research trends. We used the Bibliometrix package and VOSviewer to decipher bibliometric indices for methane emissions in cattle farms (MECF). Current dataset were collected from the Web of Science (Core Collection) database, and 8,998 publications were analyzed. The most co-occurring keywords scientists preferred were methane (1528), greenhouse gas (443), methane emissions (440), and cattle (369). Methane was the most frequently used keyword in the published scientific literature. Thematic evolution of research themes and trend results highlighted carbon dioxide, methane, dairy cattle, cattle, and risk factors during 1999-2017. Chinese Academy of Sciences ranked on top with 485 publications, followed by Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, University of Colorado, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Aarhus University. Chinese Academy of Sciences was also the most cited organization, followed by the University of Colorado, Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and United States Geological Survey. Source analysis showed that the Science of the Total Environment was cited with the highest total link strength. “Science of the Total Environment” ranked first in source core 1 with 290 citation frequencies, followed by “Journal of Dairy Science” with 223 citation frequencies. Currently, no bibliometric study has been conducted on MECF, and to fill this knowledge gap, we carried out this study to highlight methane emissions in cattle farms, aiming at a climate change perspective. In this regard, we focused on the research productivity of countries authors, journals and institutions, co-occurrence of keywords, evolution of research trends, and collaborative networking. Based on relevance degree of centrality, methane emissions and greenhouse gases appeared as basic themes, cattle, and dairy cattle appeared as emerging/declining themes, whereas, methane, greenhouse gas and nitrous oxide appeared to fall amongst basic and motor themes. On the other hand, beef cattle, rumen and dairy cow seem to be between motor and niche themes, and risk factors lie in niche themes. The present bibliometric analysis provides research progress on methane emissions in cattle farms. Current findings may provide a framework for understanding research trends and themes in methane emissions in cattle farms (MECF) research.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.535

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.011
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.289 · 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