Ontario feedlot operators' willingness to accept carbon credit revenue for adopting management practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian agricultural sector was recognised as a potential seller of carbon offset credits in the domestic emission trading system. A number of beneficial management practices may reduce GHG emissions while increasing production efficiency and profitability of agricultural activities. A contingent valuation survey was used to estimate the carbon offset price at which feedlot operators in Ontario would adopt two management practices that reduce GHG emissions: adding roasted soybean seeds to a cattle diet and increasing the intensity of feedlot operations. The value elicitation questions to estimate the mean WTA compensation were designed using a multiple bounded discrete choice format developed by Welsh and Poe (1998). It was estimated that at a carbon offset price of $ 25.14/t CO2 e provided enough incentive for feedlot operators to intensify their operations and a price of $ 109.51/t CO2e to change their feeding strategies. The mean willingness to accept a cost to change a conventional practice to a greenhouse gas emissions reducing practice was estimated to be 62% of the carbon revenue. The regression analysis demonstrated that producers' willingness to accept compensation was influenced by the individual's characteristics, farm structure variables, and practice attributes. Policy makers may use these results in the design of greenhouse gas reduction strategies for the beef sector.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".