MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399012826 · doi:10.1007/s11698-024-00285-4

Assessing agricultural adaptation to changing climatic conditions during the English agricultural revolution (1645–1740)

2024· article· en· W4399012826 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
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

VenueCliometrica · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)AgricultureAgricultural revolutionGeographyHistoryPsychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article examines the impact of climatic variability on the English Agricultural Revolution using Allen’s Nitrogen Hypothesis. While half of the variation in yields can be attributed to nitrogen-fixing plants, better cultivation, and improved seeds, the remainder can be attributed to changing climatic conditions during the relatively cold period from c. 1645–1715 and the subsequent warmer phase. The study finds that farmers made even greater efforts than observed yields during the colder and more humid climate of the second half of the seventeenth century and the early eighteenth. Conversely, increasing temperatures in the following period had a positive effect on agricultural productivity, indicating that farmers' role during this phase have been overrated.

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)0.001
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 score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.243 · 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