Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the meaning and content of the term “orderly marketing” as it was adopted by Western Canadian farm leaders in the 1920s, and to determine whether the expected results of “orderly marketing”, as they were enunciated by farm leaders, were met. Design/methodology/approach The paper examines the critique that farm leaders and Wheat Pool officials levelled against the open market, and the way they posited “orderly marketing” as a solution to their perceived problems. Using contemporary data on wheat prices and movements, it analyzes the content of orderly marketing, and the results of its implementation by the Pools. Findings The paper finds that “orderly marketing” was primarily a campaign slogan, that the problems it was alleged to address did not exist, and that its implementation by the Wheat Pools did not yield the results that the farm leaders had promised. The paper acknowledges however, the significant accomplishments of these organizations, and postulates that the concept of orderly marketing resonates with aspects of Canadian culture and helps to explain why grain marketing in the USA and Canada evolved so differently. Originality/value The agricultural cooperative movement in Western Canada has been the subject of a great deal of historical research, most of it positive. However, there are no recently published qualitative studies of the history of the term, nor in‐depth quantitative analyses of the economic results achieved by the Wheat Pools during the 1920s that compare with the contents of this paper.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.097 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".