MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7028793562

Growth-enhancing technologies: a strategy to reduce the environmental footprint of Canadian beef production

2022· dissertation· en· W7028793562 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMulticultural Education and Local Wisdom
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Beef cattleSustainabilityEcological footprintLife-cycle assessmentProduction system (computer science)Environmental impact assessment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An examination of the relationship between growth-enhancing technologies (GET’s) and the environmental footprint of beef production systems revealed that cattle backgrounded and finished with GET’s had 3 to 7% lower GHG emissions (kg CO₂e kg boneless beef⁻¹) and 3 to 8% lower NH₃ emissions (kg NH₃ kg boneless beef⁻¹). In addition, GET-treated cattle required 5 to 11% less land (ha kg boneless beef⁻¹) and 6 to 12% less water (m³ H₂O kg boneless beef⁻¹) compared to GET-free cattle. These environmental impacts, along with economic viability and consumer preference and acceptance, must be assessed in a whole-system approach to determine the long-term sustainability of GET-free production in Canadian beef 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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicMulticultural Education and Local WisdomFrench-language works237,207