MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Farmer-Identified Climate Policy and Interventions in Ontario

2020· article· en· W4408460147 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Lisa Ashton

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionClimate policyEnvironmental planningClimate changePolitical scienceEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementBusinessGeographyMedicineNursingGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

including excess nutrient application, inefficient animal feeding, and conventional tillage can be sources of GHG emissions, including N2O and CH4. We also know that some agricultural practices, including cover cropping and improved efficiency in animal feed, can reduce GHG emissions and in some cases support the sequestration of carbon in soils. But we know little about what climate change policies and interventions are effective and attractive for farmers in Ontario. A policy evaluation tool will be used to frame potential climate policy and interventions that farmers will be able to interact with identify policies and actions that they view as acceptable and effective. This research has two main objectives: (1) facilitate discussions on potential ways for farmers in Ontario to reduce GHG emissions from production; (2) catalyze climate action in agricultural production.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.774

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207