The Emergence of Agricultural Marketing Boards Revisited: A Case Study in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian milk marketing boards are agricultural institutions tightly linked to the administration of dairy programs and supply management. Using insights from the New Institutional Economics (NIE) literature this paper investigates the factors influencing the emergence of these self‐regulated, “hybrid” institutions that are managed by producers but necessitate governmental intervention to be operational. Our analysis focuses on the case of the Québec milk marketing board. It shows that the Québec milk board ensured transactional security among trading partners, where neither pure private ordering contract enforcement institutions, nor pure public ordering institutions would have succeeded to do so. The empirical case of the Québec milk board thus suggests that marketing boards in Canada may have historically assumed a broader function than merely increasing producers' rents. Au Canada, les offices de mise en marché du lait sont des institutions agricoles étroitement liées à l'administration de programmes laitiers et à la gestion de l'offre. À l'aide de la documentation sur la nouvelle économie institutionnelle, le présent article examine les facteurs qui influencent l'émergence de ces institutions hybrides et autoréglementées, qui sont administrées par les producteurs mais nécessitent l'intervention gouvernementale pour être opérationnelles. Notre analyse s'est penchée sur le cas de l'office de commercialisation du lait du Québec. Notre analyse a montré que l'office de commercialisation du Québec assurait une sécurité transactionnelle entre les partenaires commerciaux, ce qu'aucune institution privée ou publique n'aurait réussi à faire. Le cas empirique de l'office de commercialisation du lait du Québec autorise à penser que les offices de mise en marché au Canada ont peut‐être assumé une fonction plus large que celle d'avoir accru la rente économique des producteurs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".