NORTH AMERICAN AGRICULTURAL POLICIES AND EFFECTS ON WESTERN HEMISPHERE MARKETS SINCE 1995, WITH A FOCUS ON GRAINS AND OILSEEDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews and analyzes agricultural commodity support policies of the United States and Canada since 1995. This is a period of major changes in U.S. policies. The 1996 FAIR Act opened up new possibilities in farm policies, and subsequent debate about those policies culminated in 2002 with a new farm bill whose consequences may be quite significant. In Canada the period is more a consolidation of major changes in policy that had been made earlier. In both countries, the main issues addressed are the extent of income transfer to producers, and the market distortions created by those transfers. In particular, supply response to subsidies influences the productionconsumption balance, commodity prices in the North American market, and, through price transmission, commodity prices as well as trade flows elsewhere in the world. The paper reviews the available data and research findings on the extent of these effects. The first section recounts the recent history of the policies. The second section addresses the effects of the policies on commodity prices and trade flows. That section is focused on U.S. policies for the grains and oilseeds. The third section provides a prospective analysis of the commodity titles in the recently enacted 2002 U.S. Farm Bill
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".