A cost‐benefit analysis of the value of investment in a wapiti hybridisation research programme and the returns to New Zealand venison producers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Between the mid 1970s and the end of the 1980s a research programme evaluated hybridisation of red deer, initially with wapiti‐type captured animals and then with purebred wapiti imported from Canada. The cost of the research programme in 2001 dollars was $7.2 million. By 1980, the deer industry had begun introducing wapiti genes into farmed red deer herds. In 1990 wapiti hybrids accounted for approximately 5% of deer slaughtered for venison in New Zealand. By 2001 that figure had risen, possibly to as high as 50%. Due to their rapid growth to target slaughter weights, wapiti‐red deer hybrids have a greater potential than red deer of the same age to reach suitable weights in time to attain early season price premiums. Furthermore, the liveweight advantage of hybrid weaners over red deer has historically given them a price advantage at time of sale. Wapiti hybrids contributed a net present value (NPV) at 7% discount rate of $10.3 million to the New Zealand venison industry up to 2001 (internal rate of return (IRR) 13.4%). Based on MAFPolicy projections of numbers of animals slaughtered, the NPV (7%) is expected to increase to $23.6 million by 2006 (IRR 17.6%).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".