Testing for Processor Market Power in the Markets for Cattle and Hogs in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deviations of livestock input prices from processor marginal value product are usually interpreted as an indication of the application of market power by the meat packing industry. However, market power depends on economic conditions that can influence the behavior of meat packers in the market for cattle and hogs. An industry‐level translog profit function is applied to data on the Canadian finished cattle and hog markets and industry‐wide oligopsony market power functions are estimated. The estimates suggest beef packers exercised a small but sustained amount of market power in the Canadian finished cattle market from 1978 to 1997. This is not the case in the market for hogs, which was competitive from 1960 to 1997. Application of market power in packers’purchases of farm animals decreased with increases in the utilization of domestic supply of slaughter animals and with increased levels of livestock exports. Livestock productivity increases appear to have significantly enhanced oligopsony power in packers’purchases of farm animals. The analysis suggests that beef processors may exert market power when cattle prices are relatively higher.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".