MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401383410 · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104088

Can we estimate farm size from field size? An empirical investigation of the field size to farm size relationship

2024· article· en· W4401383410 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Systems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean Commission
KeywordsSubsidyAgricultureContrast (vision)EconometricsField (mathematics)Bayesian probabilityStatisticsField sizeComputer scienceGeographyMathematicsEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Farm size is a key indicator associated with environmental, economic, and social contexts and outcomes of agriculture. Farm size data is typically obtained from agricultural censuses or household surveys, but both are usually only available in infrequent time intervals and at aggregate spatial scales. In contrast, spatially explicit and detailed data on individual fields can be accessed from cadastral information systems or agricultural subsidy applications in some regions or can be derived from Earth observation data. Empirically exploring the field-size-to-farm size relationship (FFR) is a lever to enhance our understanding of spatial patterns of farm sizes by assessing field sizes. However, our currently limited empirical knowledge does not allow for the characterization of the FFR over large spatial extents. We analyze the FFR using data from the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) for Germany. The IACS manages agricultural subsidy applications in the European Union; therefore, the data include spatial information on the extent of all fields and farms for which farmers have applied for subsidies. We developed a Bayesian multilevel model and a machine learning model to estimate farm size based on field size, controlling for contextual factors such as crop types, state boundaries, topography, and neighborhood effects. We found that farm size generally increased with field size for almost all federal states and crop type groups, but the FFR varied considerably in magnitude. Farm size predictions were accurate for medium-sized and large farms (50–7,000 ha, representing 66% of the data) with mean absolute percentage errors of 40–114%, but estimates for smaller farms had higher errors. To evaluate the relationship at the landscape level, we spatially aggregated the predictions into hexagons with a diameter of 15 km. This resulted in more accurate predictions (mean absolute percentage errors of 37%) than at the field level. Our study presents the first empirical insights into the FFR, opening future research directions towards producing spatially explicit farm size predictions at scale. Such information is key for monitoring scale transitions in agricultural systems, facilitating the design of timely and targeted interventions, and avoiding undesired outcomes of such processes.

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)0.002
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 score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.237 · 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