MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1604204232

L'évolution de la productivité agricole dans la plaine de Montréal, 1852-1871: grandes et petites exploitations dans un système familial d'agriculture

2005· article· fr· W1604204232 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christian Dessureault

Bibliographic record

VenueHistoire sociale · 2005
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityMechanizationRestructuringAgricultureAgricultural economicsGeographyConsolidation (business)EconomicsAgricultural scienceEconomic growthArchaeologyEnvironmental science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The countryside around Montreal embarked on an important period of change in the middle of the nineteenth century. This study measures the productivity of agricultural development in this region during this period. The study considers three parishes at different distances from the city of Montreal: Pointe-aux-Trembles, Boucherville, and Saint-Damase. Using census data, the author evaluates variations in the productivity of the land and of labour according to parish and expecially according to the level of development. The combined impact of consolidation of holdings and early mechanization brought in the medium term an increase in labour productivity. Productivity of the land continued to remain low, and the yield varied less across the area than did labour productivity. Restructuring of holdings and mechanization had variable effects on indices of productivity. The advantage of these two changes lay primarily in important gains in the productivity of labour. In contrast, the use of less labour-intensive practices no doubt explains why more extensive and mechanized farming enterprises yielded lower productivity of land than did smaller farms employing extra labour and more intensive cultivation.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.545
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHistoire socialeSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207