MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1506775907

Biotechnology and Agriculture: The C ommon Wisdom and its Critics

2001· article· en· W1506775907 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Sagoff

Bibliographic record

VenueIndiana Journal of Global Legal Studies · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureSubsidyEconomicsScarcityPeasantBushelAgricultural economicsMarket economyInternational tradeBusinessGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When I was a child, my mother implored me to eat everything on my plate because people are starving in Africa. The non sequitur was apparent, even to me. The amount of food children in wealthy countries waste has little or no effect on the amount children in poorer nations have to eat. Industrial economies produce vast farm surpluses. In spite of these surpluses, many of the world's poor will go to bed hungry. Food shortages arise because of failures in distribution, not in production. This is the common wisdom many analysts accept.1 If this common wisdom is correct, agricultural biotechnology will affect industrial economies and peasant economies differently. In many industrial economies, for example, in the United States and in Europe, three chronic problems plague agriculture: glut, glut, and more glut. Even without the benefit of biotechnology, farm commodities flood markets and drive prices below costs?leading to trade wars as European, Australian, Canadian, and South American producers compete for buyers. Bailouts, payments for not growing crops, and export subsidies have been hallmarks of farm policy. Price is the clear indicator of plenty and scarcity. If goods are scarce relative to demand, prices rise; if they are plentiful, prices fall. Last year, prices paid to wheat farmers on the Great Plains fell to $2.06 per bushel?the same price as in 1866 in nominal terms, i.e., with no adjustment for inflation.2 Surpluses beset

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)0.000
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 score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations2
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndiana Journal of Global Legal StudiesSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207