MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403297523 · doi:10.3390/app14209209

How Climate Change Will Shape Pesticide Application in Quebec’s Golf Courses: Insights with Deep Learning Based on Assessing CMIP5 and CMIP6

2024· article· en· W4403297523 on OpenAlexaffabout
Isa Ebtehaj, J. André Fortin, Hossein Bonakdari, Guillaume Grégoire

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeEnvironmental scienceClimatologyEnvironmental resource managementGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accelerating impact of climate change on golf course conditions has led to a significant increase in pesticide dependency, underscoring the importance of innovative management strategies. The shift from Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) to the latest CMIP6 phase has drawn the attention of professionals, including engineers, decision makers, and golf course managers. This study evaluates how climate projections from CMIP6, using Canadian Earth System Models (CanESM2 and CanESM5), impact pesticide application trends on Quebec’s golf courses. Through the comparison of temperature and precipitation projections, it was found that a more substantial decline in precipitation is exhibited by CanESM2 compared to CanESM5, while the latter projects higher temperature increases. A comparison between historical and projected pesticide use revealed that, in most scenarios and projected periods, the projected pesticide use was substantially higher, surpassing past usage levels. Additionally, in comparing the two climate change models, CanESM2 consistently projected higher pesticide use across various scenarios and projected periods, except for RCP2.6, which was 27% lower than SSP1-2.6 in the second projected period (PP2). For all commonly used pesticides, the projected usage levels in every projected period, according to climate change models, surpass historical levels. When comparing the two climate models, CanESM5 consistently forecasted greater pesticide use for fungicides, with a difference ranging from 65% to 222%, and for herbicides, with a difference ranging from 114% to 247%, across all projected periods. In contrast, insecticides, growth regulators, and rodenticides displayed higher AAIR values in CanESM2 during PP1 and PP3, showing a difference of 28% to 35.6%. However, CanESM5 again projected higher values in PP2, with a difference of 1.5% to 14%.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.092
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicPesticide Residue Analysis and SafetyFrench-language works237,207