Model: collaborativeearth/bge-m3_wri_notitles
Author: collaborativeearth
Pipeline: sentence-similarity
Library: sentence-transformers
Tags: sentence-transformers, safetensors, xlm-roberta, sentence-similarity, feature-extraction, generated_from_trainer, dataset_size:82191, loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss, arxiv:1908.10084, arxiv:1705.00652, base_model:BAAI/bge-m3, base_model:finetune:BAAI/bge-m3, model-index, text-embeddings-inference, endpoints_compatible, region:us
Base models (finetune): id: BAAI/bge-m3
Card metadata: tags: sentence-transformers, sentence-similarity, feature-extraction, generated_from_trainer, dataset_size:82191, loss:MultipleNegativesRankingLoss
base_model: BAAI/bge-m3
widget: source_sentence: who is world wildlife fund
sentences: In the restoration scenario, a representative set of 20 degraded hectares in Latin America and the Caribbean—51 percent from subtropical wet and moist landscapes and 48 percent from drymixed forest and savanna biomes—is assumed to be brought under restoration and fully restored (WRI 2014; Potapov et al. 2011).

The 20 million hectares are pulled from each of these biomes according to the actual distribution of the degrees of degradation—34 percent lightly degraded, 58 percent moderately degraded, and 8 percent extremely degraded (Oldeman et al. 1991). 33 The restoration scenario then assumes that a balanced menu of three broad restoration methods—(1) wide-scale planted restoration, (2) assisted regeneration of secondary and naturally existing forests, and (3) agroforestry—will split equally between, and applied to, these target hectares., ▪ Fermentation-enabled proteins. These include products in which microorganisms such as fungi and microalgae are used to convert glucose into protein (e.g., mycoprotein) via a biomass fermentation process. The microbial biomass is typically consumed, such as in products from the companies Quorn and Meati. This category also includes foods containing functional ingredients (e.g., egg proteins, enzymes) produced by microorganisms through a precision fermentation process. The ingredients that are created are typically used to improve the flavor and texture of other foods, such as dairy products containing animal-free whey protein produced by Perfect Day.

▪ Cultivated meat. This novel technology produces meat from animal cells and is also known as “cell-based,” “cultured,” or “lab-grown” meat. Animal cells are grown in a bioreactor in a growth medium, producing actual animal meat. Examples include Eat Just’s chicken nuggets currently available for sale in Singapore, and cultivated chicken from Upside Foods and Good Meat for sale in the United States (Lucas 2023)., BirdLife International; Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Oak Ridge National Laboratory(ORNL); Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN); Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI); European Space Agency (ESA); Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI); International Soil Reference and Information Centre (ISRIC); IUCNThe World Conservation Union; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Geophysical Data Center (NOAA-NGDC); The Nature Conservancy (TNC); Patuxent Wildlife Research Laboratory; Safari Club International; United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP); United States Geological Survey (USGS), Earth Resources Observation Systems (EROS) Data Center; University of Maryland, Geography Department; The World Bank; World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC); World Wildlife Fund – U.S. (WWF-U.S.).

The authors also would like to express their gratitude to the many individuals who contributed information and advice, attended expert workshops, and reviewed successive drafts of this report. Niels Batjes, International Soil Reference and Information Centre; Roy H. Behnke, Overseas Development Institute;, source_sentence: how does grazing reduce carbon emissions
sentences: A global map of livestock density, plots the distribution of cattle, sheep and goats, horses, oxen, water buffalo, camels, and caribou (Lerner and Matthews 1988) (Map 11) Map 11) Map 11) Map 11) Map 11). Densities range from less than 1 head to over 100 head of livestock per square kilometer. Some of the highest densities in the world are in the Middle East, Asia, and Australia. In areas where the intensity of livestock production is low, especially in developing regions of Africa and parts of Asia, ranchers presumably rely on native grassland for grazing without many external inputs. Livestock can help maintain soil fertility, increase nutrient retention and water-holding capacity, and create a better climate for microflora and fauna (Delgado et al.1999: 44). If overgrazing does occur, soil compaction and erosion may follow with a decrease in soil fertility, organic matter, and water-holding capacity., The five countries with the most grassland are Australia, the Russian Federation, China, the United States, and Canada; each supporting over 3 million km 2 of grassland.

The land cover in 28 countries is more than 60 percent grassland (T T T T Table 8 able 8 able 8 able 8 able 8). The five countries with the highest percent of grassland area (all in Sub-Saharan Africa) are Benin, the Central African Republic, Botswana, Togo, and Somalia. Additionally, 25 countries have at least 60 percent and more than 100,000 km 2 of grassland; the majority are found in Sub-Saharan Africa (Angola, Benin, Botswana, Burkino Faso, Central African Republic, Cote d’Ivoire, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guinea, Kenya, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Somalia, South Africa, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe); 3 are in Asia (Mongolia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan), 1 in the Middle East (Afghanistan), and 1 in Oceania (Australia). Six countries support at least 60 percent grassland area and contain more than 1 million km 2 of grassland: Australia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Angola, South Africa, and Ethiopia., Box 3 goes further into the complexities around the impacts of “regenerative grazing” on soil carbon sequestration, land use, and the climate. Because the impacts of management practices on soil carbon sequestration can be complex and hard to predict, we recommend that net carbon sequestration from increases in soil carbon stocks be explored as a potential climate mitigation strategy, but not be seen as a “silver bullet.”

A major challenge for companies in reducing their scope 3 GHG emissions is that complex beef supply chains hinder traceability back to the farms and ranches where the meat is produced. Further complicating the challenge is that even in cases where there is traceability, there are usually no GHG emissions data linked to the farm, ranch, or supply chain. In an ideal world, a company would have supplier-specific GHG emissions data, for each beef product purchased, that it could use to assign emissions estimates to its beef purchases., source_sentence: what are the countries that have grasslands
sentences: The remaining third of the identified hectares with restoration opportunities are evenly split between those most suited to wide-scale restoration to a closed forest-dominated landscape (e.g., in areas of low tree planting or natural forest recovery), and those suited to agroforestry and agroor silvopastoralism in degraded forests, wooded savannas, and other agricultural lands. In addition, open croplands are likely to benefit from additional trees (for example, to reduce erosion from wind and water)., With a few exceptions, records on the rate and extent of change are not well documented. Data presented by the IUCN-World Conservation Union in 1991 summarize the extent of and change in the lowland grasslands of central and eastern Europe (IUCN 1991). Grassland status, distribution, and recent losses are presented for 14 countries: Albania; Bulgaria; Czechoslovakia (pre-breakup); Germany (portion); Hungary; Poland; Romania; the former western Soviet Republics of Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Moldova, Latvia, and Estonia; and Yugoslavia (pre-breakup). IUCN data on permanent pasture, an inexact category for defining grassland, reveals that over the ten-year period from 1976 to 1986 extent of change in this pasture in eight of these countries (data for each of the former Soviet Republics are not reported) ranged from a 7.7 percent decrease for the Federal Republic of Germany to a 13.5 percent increase for Bulgaria., ♦ two in South America: Brazil and Argentina:

♦ two in North America: the United States and Canada:

♦ one in Europe: the Russian Federation; and

The five countries with the most grassland are Australia, the Russian Federation, China, the United States, and Canada; each supporting over 3 million km 2 of grassland., source_sentence: what types of goods are traded
sentences: We assumed an additional $150/ha for transaction costs and another $300/ha, in the case of planted restoration, to account for assorted opportunity costs (see Table A5, columns 3 and 4). This raises the total adjusted historical cost estimates to: assisted regeneration ($750/ha); planted restoration ($1,350/ha), and agroforestry ($1,350/ha) (see column 5).

Finally, it is assumed that costs rise and fall with the degree of degradation, given that it affects not only the amount of productivity loss that must be regained, but also the length of the restoration period required for full recovery of ES potential.

Because moderately degraded landscapes account for the majority of regional degraded lands, the total adjusted historical averages for each method (found in column 5) have been assigned to represent the baseline costs of restoring moderately degraded lands (column 7).

Severely degraded lands are those with less than half of the primary productivity of non-degraded land—twice the size of the gap of moderately degraded lands. Therefore, estimated restoration costs of severely degraded lands are higher than the moderately degraded baseline by 100 percent., Beyond animal lives, there are several other characteristics of animal welfare that organizations sourcing meat might choose to prioritize, and these can be connected to environmental impacts. Through our stakeholder interviews and our review of various authorities on animal welfare, we identified a set of animal welfare attributes of interest.

The five animal welfare characteristics that we focused on were the use of antibiotics, the use of growth hormones, outdoor access, breeding for slower growth, and the use of cages. Through our interviews, we found that, while some companies can sufficiently monitor their supply chains to provide specific information on the welfare of animals on the farms from which they source, many rely on welfare certifications. Certifications link certain qualities with a given product, and ensure that that quality follows the product throughout the supply chain. This makes it easier for companies to source products with a specific characteristic, such as organic or free-range., Overall, the availability and quality of information tend to match the recognition accorded to various goods and services by markets. Generally good data are available for traded goods, such as grains, fish, meat, and timber products and some of the more basic relevant productivity factors, such as fertilizer application rates, water inputs, and yields. Data on products that are exchanged in informal markets, or consumed directly, are patchy and often modeled. Examples include fish landings from artisanal fisheries, woodfuels, subsistence food crops and livestock, and nonwood forest products. Information on the biological factors that support production of these goods — including size of fish spawning stocks, biomass densities, subsistence food yields, and forest food harvests — are generally absent., source_sentence: what to do about climate change in the meat industry
sentences: We also conducted t-tests to determine the statistical significance of the above findings. For these t-tests, our null hypothesis was that there would be no difference between the conventional and alternative production systems, while the alternative hypothesis was that the alternative production systems would have mostly higher environmental impacts than the conventional systems. We conducted these tests using the paired data points for beef, lamb, dairy, pork, poultry, and eggs, for both GHG emissions and land use. (There were not enough data for water pollution and water use to conduct t-tests.) The GHG emissions results were statistically significant for beef, poultry, and eggs, with a p value <0.05. The land use results were statistically significant for beef, dairy, pork, poultry, and eggs, with a p value <0.05. Overall, the fact that the majority of these results, for GHG emissions and land use, were statistically significant reinforces the findings that alternative production systems generally have higher environmental impacts than conventional systems. There were not enough data for water pollution and water use, so the statistical significance of the water-related results could not be determined., 1.  Calculate the scope 3 GHG emissions baseline of food purchases, including meat. Establishing a scope 3 GHG emissions baseline for food purchases will allow companies to understand how much of an impact meat has on their food-related carbon footprint and enable them to pinpoint emissions hot spots.

2.  Shift from high-emissions products like beef and lamb toward lower-emissions products like plant-based foods and alternative proteins. This type of shift is a triple win for climate, nature, and animal welfare.

3.  Define priorities around improved meat sourcing by product type. For example, around beef, the goal might be to reduce climate and land impacts—both through sourcing less of it, and through encouraging lower-emissions production methods. For chicken and eggs, the goal might be to improve animal welfare, promote responsible antibiotic use, and minimize water pollution., Annual flow values (in 2012$) for WFPs came to $21/ha in temperate biomes; $2,424/ha in wet and moist landscapes; and $702/ha in dry biomes, including savannas. Annual flow values for NWFPs came to $386/ha in temperate biomes; $386/ha in wet and moist landscapes; and $65 in dry biomes, including savannahs.

ANNEX II. ASSESSMENT MODEL AND THE SCENARIO EQUATIONS

This model extends and builds on methodological approaches previously developed by Verdone (2014), using input values from a database developed from Chiabai et al. (2011), and elaborating on independently sourced data. Nevertheless, while relying on these authors for our Latin America and Caribbean input annual benefit flow values for wood forest products and non-wood forest products, this study generates its own method for valuing the other four economic benefits under consideration—agricultural output, food security, ecotourism (none of which were included in these previous lines of work), and carbon sequestration.
pipeline_tag: sentence-similarity
library_name: sentence-transformers
metrics: cosine_accuracy@1, cosine_accuracy@3, cosine_accuracy@5, cosine_accuracy@10, cosine_precision@1, cosine_precision@3, cosine_precision@5, cosine_precision@10, cosine_recall@1, cosine_recall@3, cosine_recall@5, cosine_recall@10, cosine_ndcg@10, cosine_mrr@10, cosine_map@100
model-index: name: SentenceTransformer based on BAAI/bge-m3
results: task: type: information-retrieval
name: Information Retrieval
dataset: name: ir eval
type: ir-eval
metrics: type: cosine_accuracy@1
value: 0.3448979591836735
name: Cosine Accuracy@1
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@3
value: 0.5415816326530613
name: Cosine Accuracy@3
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@5
value: 0.6197704081632653
name: Cosine Accuracy@5
verified: no, type: cosine_accuracy@10
value: 0.7197704081632653
name: Cosine Accuracy@10
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@1
value: 0.3448979591836735
name: Cosine Precision@1
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@3
value: 0.18052721088435372
name: Cosine Precision@3
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@5
value: 0.12395408163265305
name: Cosine Precision@5
verified: no, type: cosine_precision@10
value: 0.07197704081632653
name: Cosine Precision@10
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@1
value: 0.3448979591836735
name: Cosine Recall@1
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@3
value: 0.5415816326530613
name: Cosine Recall@3
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@5
value: 0.6197704081632653
name: Cosine Recall@5
verified: no, type: cosine_recall@10
value: 0.7197704081632653
name: Cosine Recall@10
verified: no, type: cosine_ndcg@10
value: 0.5246359421749192
name: Cosine Ndcg@10
verified: no, type: cosine_mrr@10
value: 0.4630489249271165
name: Cosine Mrr@10
verified: no, type: cosine_map@100
value: 0.47208776508915584
name: Cosine Map@100
verified: no
Likes: 0 | All-time downloads: 51
Created: 2025-05-22 09:00:38