MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404612025 · doi:10.53555/sfs.v10i1.3191

The Environmental Sustainability of Edible Insects Farming- A study

2023· article· en· W4404612025 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
R. Basumatary

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Survey in Fisheries Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Utilization and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityAgricultureAgroforestryBusinessGeographyEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the environmental sustainability of edible insect farming as an alternative to traditional livestock production. With the global population growing and concerns over the environmental impact of conventional agriculture, edible insects have emerged as a potential solution to food security and sustainability challenges. This research reviews the ecological benefits of insect farming, focusing on resource efficiency, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and lower land and water usage compared to conventional meat production. The study also examines the challenges and barriers to scaling up insect farming, such as consumer acceptance, regulatory frameworks, and the need for further technological advancements. The findings suggest that, while insect farming offers a promising avenue for reducing the environmental footprint of food production, more comprehensive studies are needed to optimize production systems and fully assess long-term ecological impacts. This abstract summarizes key aspects of a study on edible insect farming's environmental sustainability, offering insights into its potential benefits and challenges.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Survey in Fisheries SciencesSame topicInsect Utilization and EffectsFrench-language works237,207