MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7034739557

Understanding Canadian Winegrowers’ Perceptions of Climate Change and Their Implications for Adaptation Behaviors

2019· other· en· W7034739557 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University) · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBrock University
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Quality (philosophy)PopulationWork (physics)Limiting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change (CC) is currently impacting and will continue to affect the international and the Canadian wine industry in the future. Understanding how Canadian winegrowers perceive CC and address its consequences through adaptation can help support the grape and wine industry in the context of CC. The thesis aimed to understand how winegrowers perceive CC and the ways CC adaptation is occurring throughout Canada. Two studies were conducted in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Québec and Nova Scotia. The first study of this thesis characterizes winegrowers with respect to their environmental values, CC knowledge and beliefs, and their perception of the consequences of CC on their winegrowing operations. The second study describes the present state of CC adaptation in the Canadian wine industry, as well as the adaptation strategies currently used and considered for future implementation to cope with specific weather events associated with CC. This study also investigates the attributes that drive CC adaptation throughout the country. Together, the two studies provide an overview of CC perception and adaptation in the main winegrowing provinces of Canada for the first time in literature. The thesis also contributes to the scholarly literature on CC perception and adaptation by highlighting the drivers that influence winegrowers’ adoption – or lack thereof – of adaptation practices in their operations. It also offers practical information that can be used by stakeholders of the industry to communicate CC information and adopt new practices to address its effects.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrock University Digital Repository (Brock University)Same topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207