MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051379674 · doi:10.1080/08109028.2014.933604

US wine industry: following the Oregon trail

2013· article· en· W2051379674 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrometheus · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicWine Industry and Tourism
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersOregon Wine Research Institute, College of Agricultural Sciences, Oregon State UniversityGenome British ColumbiaWashington State University
KeywordsWinemakingWineState (computer science)MarketingBusinessEconomicsEconomyIndustrial organizationComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The US wine industry is frequently thought to be California – an undoubted success story. However, three other regions – New York, Washington State and Oregon – have wine industries facing mixed fortunes. This paper reviews the progress of each, demonstrating how the triple helix model identifies key relationship advantages and problems that explain performance rather better than natural advantages or market conditions. The paper reviews the mixed fortunes of these regions in the US with winemaking in other parts of the world, suggesting that institutions, rather than any other factor, explain differences in performance.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.206 · 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