MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415526092 · doi:10.1139/facets-2025-0121

Future canola yields under different climate scenarios in Saskatchewan, Canada

2025· article· en· W4415526092 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Preston Sorenson, Bryan J. Mood, Steven J. Shirtliffe

Bibliographic record

VenueFACETS · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on Brassica
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanolaClimate changePrecipitationYield (engineering)Crop yieldAgricultureCrop

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canola is the largest crop in Saskatchewan and critically important to the province's agricultural industry. Yields are sensitive to high temperatures and likely to be impacted by future climate change. To estimate the future effects of climate change (2025–2100) on canola yields, data from 26 climate models for three future emissions pathways (shared socioeconomic pathway (SSP) 1–2.6 (low), 2–4.5 (medium), and 5–8.5 (high)) along with predictive soil mapping results was used to build a predictive model. Historical yield data was modelled as a function of soil organic carbon, clay, and sand along with maximum and minimum July temperature, days with maximum temperatures above 30 °C, nights with minimum temperatures above 16 °C, and mean total annual precipitation. Modelled outcomes indicate that yields were more sensitive to temperature than precipitation and decline when mean daily July maximum temperatures were above 28.5 °C. Under SSP1-2.6, canola yields remain relatively stable with a median decline of 39 kg ha −1 (2%). Under SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5, canola yields were estimated to decline by 137 kg ha −1 (6%) and 349 kg ha −1 (15%), respectively. The distribution of yield losses was not equal with the greatest decreases occurring in the Black soil zone.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFACETSSame topicNitrogen and Sulfur Effects on BrassicaFrench-language works237,207