MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977581038 · doi:10.5539/sar.v2n2p142

Harnessing Agricultural Potentials for Economic Growth in North Carolina

2013· article· en· W1977581038 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Janaranjana Herath, David A. Hill

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIncome, Poverty, and Inequality
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusAgriculturePovertyUnemploymentAgricultural economicsPopulationGeographyEconomicsEconomic growthDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agriculture in North Carolina contributes to 19 percent of the state’s income and employs over 20 percent of the work force. Agricultural activities are significant in rural counties and nearly 30 percent of the total population of North Carolina lives in 85 rural counties. Individuals in these rural counties have less income, education, and employment opportunities eventually in high poverty and unemployment rates. The objective of this study is to examine the potential use of agriculture in economic growth of North Carolina using county level data. Data were gathered from U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Census Bureau for the period of 2000 to 2010. A system of simultaneous equations is used for the analysis. Results highlight that increasing income increases agricultural activities and vise versa. Thus, the counties with high household income levels are more capable of incorporating agriculture in economic growth while the counties with significant agricultural activities are more competent of improving income levels. Overall, results conclude the importance of secured satisfactory level of income through agriculture to enhance economic growth.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicIncome, Poverty, and InequalityFrench-language works237,207