MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1540943113 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.61050

The Development of Group Farming in Post-War Japanese Agriculture

2001· article· en· W1540943113 on OpenAlex
Ashutosh Sarker, Tadao Itoh

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Crisis of the 21st Century
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureIndustrialisationGovernment (linguistics)World War IIBusinessEconomic growthAgricultural economicsEconomyPolitical scienceGeographyEconomicsMarket economyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper analyzes how Japanese group farming organizations have developed since World War II. In post-war Japanese agriculture, part-time farmers are increasing, and heirs and successors to the older farmers are leaving farms and rural areas as a consequence of rapid industrialization. About nine years after the emergence of post-war voluntary group farming, the government introduced the concept of corporate (group) farming, appealing in particular to young farmer-successors hoping that corporate (group) farming would help them get benefits similar to those offered by industries in urban areas. The study reveals that thanks to the government's special support and laws, the number of corporate (group) farming organizations has rapidly increased although it is still low as compared to the number of voluntary group farming organizations. Nowadays, however, group farming plays an important role in post-war Japanese agriculture. This paper also discusses briefly how Japanese group farming differs from, or is similar to, group farming in some other Asian countries, developed and developing.

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.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.177 · 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