MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Metropolitan Proximity and U.S. Agricultural Productivity, 1978–1997*

2003· article· en· W1986529086 on OpenAlex
John K. Thomas, Frank M. Howell

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Sociology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetropolitan areaLivestockAgricultureQuarter (Canadian coin)GeographyAgricultural economicsProductivityService (business)SocioeconomicsAgricultural productivityEconomic growthAgricultural scienceEconomicsEconomyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Metropolitan encroachment into surrounding countrysides has had noticeable consequences on American agriculture. This research examines gross farm sales in five categories of crops and five categories of livestock and poultry by county proximity to metropolitan areas. A seven‐category classification of counties was derived from the 1983 and 1993 Economic Research Service/Beale rural‐urban codes and used in the analysis. Our findings showed a significant metropolitan influence on agricultural sales of crop and livestock commodities, particularly those commodities that can be intensively produced on few numbers of acres. Some of this influence is attributed to the rapid growth of the urban areas during the past quarter century. Our results challenge widely‐held traditional perceptions about the spatial organization of agricultural production in the United States.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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