MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021476707 · doi:10.1111/1467-8489.00168

Determinants of non‐farm labour participation rates among farmers in Australia

2002· article· en· W2021476707 on OpenAlexaff
Hazel Lim‐Applegate, Gil Rodriguez

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultivariate probit modelSpouseAgricultureProbit modelSocioeconomic statusDemographic economicsEconomicsSocioeconomicsGeographyAgricultural economicsLabour economicsDemographyPolitical scienceSociologyPopulationEconometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent decades, non‐farm employment has become prevalent and an important source of income for Australian farm families. However, models identifying the relative significance of the socioeconomic variables influencing non‐farm employment participation rates have never been estimated in Australia. In this paper, a bivariate probit model of non‐farm employment participation rates was estimated, using information from the Australian Bureau of Agricultural Resource Economics (ABARE) 1994–1995 surveys. It was found that the participation decision of the farm operator and spouse is likely to be jointly determined, that non‐farm employment participation increased at a declining rate with age among farmers and that university education enhances the participation rates particularly among spouses. Participation rates were also higher among spouses with lower other income and with no dependent children.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Agricultural and Resource EconomicsSame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207