MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963194539 · doi:10.1111/cjag.12026

Impact of Genetically Engineered Varieties on the Cost Structure of Corn and Soybean Production in Canada

2013· article· en· W1963194539 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Bishnu Saha, Rakhal Sarker, Verna Mitura

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphYukon Department of EnvironmentYukon University
FundersGovernment of CanadaUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsProductivityProduction (economics)Index (typography)Genetically modified maizeFertilizerAgronomyCost structureAgricultural scienceBiotechnologyGenetically modified cropsMathematicsEconomicsEnvironmental scienceBiologyAgricultural economicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the impact of genetically engineered (GE) varieties on the cost structure of corn and soybean production in Canada. Employing an adoption index for each farm and a time trend with farm‐level data on production costs of grain corn and soybeans from 2000 to 2007, a translog cost function and the associated input‐share equations are estimated. The use of the adoption index improves the estimates of technological change and multifactor productivity (MFP) growth. The results demonstrate that the adoption of GE corn and soybean reduced the variable costs of production by 0.62% per year. The MFP of corn and soybean grew by 2.0% per year during the study period, and 31% of this growth is attributable to GE varieties of these crops. The results also reveal that the adoption of GE varieties reduced the cost shares of fertilizer, herbicides and pesticides, and machinery in corn and soybean production. While the adoption of GE varieties increased the cost shares of seeds and custom works including labor, only the former was statistically significant.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.142 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207