MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410530761 · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2025.104391

Assessing Saskatchewan forage production with regard to carbon and nitrogen emissions

2025· article· en· W4410530761 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stuart J. Smyth

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Systems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Cattlemen's Association
KeywordsForageProduction (economics)Environmental scienceCarbon fibersGreenhouse gasNitrogenNatural resource economicsAgroforestryAgronomyEconomicsComputer scienceChemistryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT Policy issues in most nations include adapting primary agricultural production to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Commitments have been established through multi-lateral agreements targeting GHG emission reductions to abate climate change impacts. In response to policy initiatives targeted at industries such as agriculture, producers are adopting innovative production methods and technologies to provide environmental services and mitigate emissions. GHG emissions arising from livestock production contribute to a damaging narrative surrounding agriculture, particularly beef production. OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is three-fold, quantifying (a) net emissions, 2 (b) changes in practice, and (c) economic outcomes attributed to the forage production facet of cow-calf production. METHODS The Saskatchewan Forage Production Survey was developed to gather forage management practices data, placing emphasis on land use and land management changes. Canada's whole-farm assessment model, Holos, was applied as a carbon accounting framework to derive the net emissions of the forage production cycle. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS Results indicate carbon sequestration increased between the periods of 1991–94 and 2016–19. Gross emissions decreased to a larger degree and net emission results for the forage production facet of the Saskatchewan cow calf sector are −0.123 Mg CO2e/ha/yr in 2016–19. SIGNIFICANCE Recommendations include the renewal of forage rejuvenation funding programs that may improve forage yields and carbon sequestration potential. Further, the expansion of term conservation easement programs to include non-native forage lands is recommended to incentivize the retention of forage land.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural SystemsSame topicSoil Carbon and Nitrogen DynamicsFrench-language works237,207