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 OpenAlexaff
Ashutosh Sarker, Tadao Itoh

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicFinancial Crisis of the 21st CenturyFrench-language works237,207