MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1811251483 · doi:10.14217/5k3w8fb9png2-en

Surging Food Prices and Commonwealth Developing Countries

2008· paratext· en· W1811251483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Derek Headey

Bibliographic record

VenueCommonwealth trade hot topics · 2008
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIsland Studies and Pacific Affairs
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommonwealthLivelihoodPovertyFood pricesDevelopment economicsDeveloping countryMalnutritionEconomic growthFood securityEconomicsBusinessGeographyAgricultural economicsAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 2003, international prices of a wide range of commodities have surged upwards in dramatic fashion, in many cases more than doubling in the space of a few years or even months. Unlike other commodities, surging food prices are of special concern to the world’s poor. Many impoverished people depend on food production for their livelihoods, and all poor people spend large portions of their household budgets on food. There are concerns that millions of people may have been plunged into poverty by this crisis, and that the already poor households suffer further through increased hunger and malnutrition. The 53 members of the Commonwealth comprise a diverse group of high-, middle- and low-income countries, including countries with large populations such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh; small island states like Antigua and Barbuda, and Seychelles; and net food or oil producers, for example Australia, Canada and Nigeria. This issue of Commonwealth Trade Hot Topics summarises the key findings of a study commissioned by the Commonwealth Secretariat on the impact of surging food prices on Commonwealth developing countries.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.014
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommonwealth trade hot topicsSame topicIsland Studies and Pacific AffairsFrench-language works237,207