MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7134447372

Implementing sustainability production techniques and landscape management at the UBC Farm

2009· report· en· W7134447372 on OpenAlexaff
Misuzu Noguchi, Denny Oenar, Hanako Okano, Ricky Park, Jason Patchell, Winnie Pauline, April Peters, Julie Wittrock

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainabilityProduction (economics)AgricultureCleaner productionPlastic wasteSustainable agricultureSustainable production
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of plastics in agriculture, or plasticulture, is a comparatively recent phenomenon, with numerous associated benefits and is used globally to enhance agricultural production. Despite the production benefits of agricultural plastics, sustainable waste management is a considerable challenge, but an important goal for the UBC farm. The objectives of this project were to determine the primary plastics used in agriculture, to establish the main issues concerning the management of plastic waste, and to identify potential alternatives and solutions regarding these challenges. To fulfill these goals, a thorough literature search was conducted, as well as extensive communication with various people affiliated with the recycling industry. The plastics primarily used at the UBC farm include drip tape, plastic mulch, and greenhouse films. It was determined that there are several waste management alternatives for these plastics that are commonly implemented in agriculture, including biodegradable plastics, incineration, and recycling. Recycling was identified as potentially being the most environmentally sustainable alternative to plastic waste management. However, due to a poor market for recycled products and a general reluctance by the recycling industry to refine agricultural plastics, recycling is not a plausible alternative at this time. More research and an initiation of open communication between the agricultural and recycling sectors is necessary to make recycling feasible for everyone involved. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→French-language works237,207→