MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409232053 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/adc9c9

Warmer temperatures provide little benefit in offsetting cold stress in Canadian crop yields

2025· article· en· W4409232053 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tor N. Tolhurst, Alan P. Ker

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant responses to elevated CO2
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCropCold stressAgricultural economicsNatural resource economicsEconomicsAgronomyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The net effect of warmer temperatures for cold-climate agriculture remains unknown: cold temperatures disrupt production, but warmer temperatures can also bring yield-reducing extreme heat. We introduce an approach to measure cold-temperature exposure using sinusoidal degree days, an exact analog to the approach widely used to measure heat exposure. Applying this approach to model the yields of six Canadian crops, we find yield penalties to cold-temperature exposure mirror those from extreme heat. While average yields under low- and high-emission scenarios increase significantly when warmer days mitigate cold damage, these gains are too small to offset additional extreme-heat damage, and the net effect remains broadly negative. For barley, canola, oats and wheat, damages are severely negative (−28.4% to −57.8% loss). For maize and soybean, outcomes range from no distinguishable change to moderate losses (−5.2%). Additionally, yield risk increases, with higher coefficients of variation and low-yield probabilities across all scenarios.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicPlant responses to elevated CO2French-language works237,207