Landscape Clubs: Co‐existence of Genetically Modified and Organic Crops
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possibility of increased production of genetically modified (GM) crops in agriculture accentuates the need to examine the feasibility of GM and non‐GM technologies co‐existing on a common physical landscape. Using the theory of clubs, this paper examines the possibility of co‐existence for GM and organic wheat technologies through the formation of an organic club with an endogenously determined buffer zone. Given the available data on prices, and yields, it is shown that a club can be created in which GM and organic agricultural production technologies can economically co‐exist in the same physical landscape. Specifically, co‐existence results in an increase in economic welfare over a situation where only GM technology is used but is not Pareto superior because producers in the buffer zone will incur injury. We show that organic producers in the club can compensate producers in the buffer zone and still be better off. Hence, the compensation principle holds. La possibilité de production accrue de cultures génétiquement modifiées (GM) accentue la nécessité d'examiner la faisabilité de coexistence des technologies GM et non GM dans un même paysage agricole. À l'aide de la théorie des clubs, le présent article a examiné la possibilité de coexistence des technologies de culture de blé GM et de blé biologique en créant un club ≪biologique≫ comprenant une zone tampon déterminée de façon endogène. Compte tenu des données disponibles concernant les prix et les rendements, il est montré qu'il est possible de créer un club au sein duquel les technologies de production de cultures biologiques et GM peuvent économiquement coexister dans un même paysage naturel. Spécifiquement, la coexistence engendre une augmentation du bien‐être économique par rapport à une situation où seule la technologie GM est utilisée, mais elle n'est pas Pareto supérieure parce que les producteurs dans la zone tampon subiront des dommages. Nous montrons que les producteurs de cultures biologiques membres du club peuvent indemniser les producteurs de la zone tampon tout en demeurant en bonne position. Le principe de compensation tient donc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
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".