MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401063131 · doi:10.31015/jaefs.2024.3.1

The impact of sectors on agriculture based on artificial intelligence data: a case study on G7 countries and Turkiye

2024· article· en· W4401063131 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ersin Çağlar

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureScope (computer science)Investment (military)PopularityBusinessEconomic sectorCloud computingEconomic growthEconomicsEconomyComputer sciencePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The growing development of technology has had an impact on many sectors particularly business, communication, education and agriculture. In addition to its popularity, technology has brought many new concepts to the use of sectors, most of the important of which are cloud computing, artificial intelligence and cryptocurrencies. While the opportunities and concepts provided by technology have destroyed the existing job opportunities, they also introduced many positive opportunities like artificial intelligence, which can be considered as one of such positive innovations. The OECD artificial intelligence data of G7 countries and Turkey were used within the scope of this study. This study analyses the investment opportunities in agriculture and other sectors based on the artificial intelligence data. In addition to this study, both country-based and sectoral comparisons were made respectively. As a result, AI investments in the agricultural sector are generally at a lower level than other sectors. According to the analysis results, countries such as Türkiye and Canada are the countries that invest the most in the agricultural sector. This may reflect these countries' interest in agricultural potential and agricultural technology.

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)0.001
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 score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.284
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

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Agriculture Environment and Food SciencesSame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207