Comparative study of environmental impacts of imported organic products and regional conventional products â Geneva's case
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nowadays, the consumer is worried by his health and by the environmental protection. Two interesting groups, among the others, can be distinguished : persons worried of eating organic products and persons who consume regional products. What about imported organic products? And what about local conventional products? Which environmental impacts have they? The objective of the work was to compare products stemming from the organic farming and imported in Geneva with products stemming from the regional conventional agriculture, where the region is Geneva. Studied products are apple, tomato, wheat and egg. The origin of these organic products is New-Zealand, Netherland, Canada and United Kingdom, respectively. Results show that each production process involves specific impacts. A unique conclusion for all fruits, all vegetables, all cereals or all animal products is not possible. However, for the precise cases studied, we can say that for all products results show that the imported organic products lead more environmental impacts than regional conventional products. For tomato and egg, a production improvement could invert the tendency. For apple and wheat, a transport reduction will decrease environmental impacts. These results lead to some interrogations : Is Local agriculture enough to feed its inhabitants? Is conventional agriculture sustainable?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".