MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1958763496

Study on Influencing Factors of Food Security in China Based on Historical Data From 1978 to 2013

2015· article· en· W1958763496 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuyan Tang, Shuo Bai, Tang Jian

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in sociology of science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood securityLivelihoodAgriculturePer capitaChinaConsumption (sociology)Index (typography)BusinessAgricultural economicsValue (mathematics)Social securityEconomic growthEconomicsPublic economicsGeographySocial scienceStatistics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Not only food security affects the people’s livelihood, but also affects national economic development and social stability. Chinese food security has made remarkable achievements, and it is very important reference value to research on influencing factors for formulating food security policy. This paper summary the literature about influencing factors of food safety, then be established in definition of food security, choose a measurement index, and considers a few factors and conditions, make use of 1978-2013 Chinese macroeconomic data, reveal the main factors affecting food security. Research found that agricultural mechanization, chemical fertilizer, efficient irrigation and food policy have an important contribution to food security, while the contribution of per capita grain acreage decreased year by year, and the agricultural labor force, national financial allocation for agricultural science and technology, rural electricity consumption does not have a statistical significance for food security.

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 score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.567
GPT teacher head0.550
Teacher spread0.016 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in sociology of scienceSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207