MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009482751 · doi:10.1080/13504850600993531

Competitive structure of Canadian wheat exports in the world market

2008· article· en· W2009482751 on OpenAlex

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

VenueApplied Economics Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoolingBusinessEconomicsMarket powerGovernment (linguistics)MarketingInternational tradeMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article re-examines competitive structure of Canadian wheat exporters for evidence of pricing-to-market by the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB), and extends the extant literature by utilizing a broader range of data over importing countries, which better facilitates the detection of pricing behaviour. Our analysis yields interesting empirical results that contrast with other recent arguments. In particular, we find that the CWB exercises mixed practices having market power in a limited extent, getting premiums with better quality of its wheat in some markets and providing wheat at discounted prices in some other destination countries. Notes 1Figures for market shares of major wheat exporting countries from 1960/1961 to 2004/2005 by marketing year are available from the author upon request. 2The CWB is one of the largest and longest standing public export-marketing agencies of wheat and barley in the world. It is a mandatory pool, as producers are required to sell their grain to the CWB. Three pillars provide the basis of CWB operations: single-desk selling, price pooling and government guarantees. 3The EEP was initiated under Food Security Act of 1985. This program allows exporters to sell US products in targeted markets at prices below their costs by providing cash bonuses. According to the data set of Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States provided by Foreign Agricultural Service of the USDA, among various commodities, wheat accounts for more than 80% of the total value of all EEP-assisted sales. Until 1994, EEP was applied to an average of 50 to 70% of US wheat exports. 4Wilson et al. state that price discrimination has continued even after the elimination of EEP, but at a lesser magnitude, and that it exists to the extent that the CWB can exploit market power and differentiate their product from those of competitors. 5The importing countries are Algeria, Belgium--Luxembourg, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ghana, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Morocco, Mozambique, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States and Venezuela. 6The OECD data set for the unit values of Canadian wheat in destination markets is available until 1997, so samples from 1998 to 2003 were obtained from the CWB. We compared the two data sets and found that earlier observations of the CWB sample coincide with the observations of the OECD sample for the same years. When splicing two different series from different sources into a series, in some cases, there could be a jump or kink in the final time series at the point of splicing. To ascertain whether there were jumps or kinks in the data, we plotted each time series of the panel data, but did not find evidence of any jump or kink during the sample period. Table 1. Summary statistics of Canadian wheat prices and Canadian dollar values vs. importing countries' currency values Download CSVDisplay Table 7The Breusch and Pagan LM test was performed and the test statistic is larger than the critical value of χ2 distribution with 2 degrees of freedom at the 5% level (5.99). That is, the null hypothesis of no time and cross effect was rejected, indicating that inclusion of country and time-specific effects is reasonable. 8The Hausman (Citation1978) test was performed, and the result showed that the test statistic is larger than the critical value of χ2 distribution at the 5% level. Therefore, the null hypothesis of no correlation between the effect variables and the regressors was rejected and thus the country and time effects are treated as fixed.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.136 · 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