MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024047679 · doi:10.1080/0003684042000247406

Assessing the impact of economic liberalization across countries: a comparison of dairy industry efficiency in Canada and the USA

2004· article· en· W2024047679 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Morteza Haghiri, James Nolan, Kien C. Tran

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Economics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersIndustry Canada
KeywordsEconomicsFrontierLiberalizationAgricultural economicsEconometricsNonparametric statisticsStochastic frontier analysisDairy industryProduction (economics)MicroeconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines and compares the technical efficiency measures of Ontario and New York dairy producers for the period 1992 to 1998. A nonparametric stochastic frontier model is introduced to estimate technical efficiency. The backfitting algorithm of Breiman and Friedman is used to estimate the frontier. Empirical results indicate that during the period of study, New York dairy farmers produced milk more efficiently than Ontario dairy producers, but the magnitude of the difference was small. The estimated mean technical efficiency for the former group is 0.602 as compared to 0.532 for the latter. The results also indicated that over time, dairy farms in both regions improved their level of technical efficiency. Furthermore, no correlation was found between farm size and estimated technical efficiency.

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)0.007
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations26
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied EconomicsSame topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207