MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The political economy of farmland ownership regulations and land prices

2006· article· en· W2003608996 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shon Ferguson, Hartley Furtan, Jared G. Carlberg

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Economics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndogeneityEconomic rentEconomicsInstrumental variableOrdinary least squaresValue (mathematics)AcreAgricultural landVariable (mathematics)Agricultural economicsAgricultureLand tenureEconometricsMicroeconomicsGeographyAgricultural scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the most ubiquitous forms of agricultural regulation is a restriction on farmland ownership. One Canadian example of a farmland ownership restriction is The Saskatchewan Farm Security Act (FSA), passed in 1974. The purpose of this article is to explain, using a political economy framework, why the FSA was implemented and to estimate the effect of the FSA on Saskatchewan farmland values. A Present Value (PV) model is used to estimate the relationship between land values, rents, and the regulation. The Hausman endogeneity test reveals that the regulation variable is endogenous with the land price. The sign of the regulation variable is negative, which fits with the theory, i.e., the more stringent the regulation the lower the land value. We estimate that the regulation lowered Saskatchewan farmland prices by an average of 4 to 34 US$/acre, depending on whether ordinary least squares (OLS) or two‐stage least squares (TSLS) is employed in the estimation, over the period of 1974–2001.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.169 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural EconomicsSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207