MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W106447187

Pork Value Chains: A Comparison of Catalonia, Spain and Manitoba, Canada

2010· preprint· en· W106447187 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Victoria Soldevila

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProfitability indexAgricultureProduction (economics)Value (mathematics)Supply chainAgricultural economicsBusinessAgricultural scienceGeographyEconomicsEnvironmental scienceMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comparative analysis of pork value chains in Catalonia,\nSpain and Manitoba, Canada. Intensive hog production models were implemented in Catalonia\nin the 1960s as a result of agriculture crises and fostered by feedstuffs factories. The expansion\nof the hog sector in Manitoba is more recent (in the 1990s) and brought about in large part by the opening of the Maple Leaf Meats processing plant in Brandon, Manitoba. This plant is\ncapable of processing 90,000 hogs per week. Both hog production models ‐ the ‘older’ one in\nCatalonia (Spain) and the ‘newer’ in Manitoba‐ have been, until recently, examples of success.\nInventories and production have been increasing substantially and both regions have proven to have great export potential. Recently, however, tensions have been developing with the hog production models of both regions, particularly as they relate to environmental concerns. The\npurpose of the paper is to compare the value chains with respect to their origins (e.g. supply a\ngrowing demand for pork, ensure farm profitability) and present states (e.g. environmental\nconcerns, profitability). Keywords: pork value chain, hog farms, agri‐food studies.\nJEL: Q10, Q13, O57

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.830
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207