Output and Price Determination in the Canadian Chicken Industry: Which Should Come First?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bilateral bargaining between chicken producers and processing firms determined chicken prices in Ontario from 1995 to 2002. A significant reform in 2003 introduced a formula‐based live price that is a function of chicken producers' costs. The latter pricing mechanism reduces the risk faced by processing firms and producers because the chicken price is known when output decisions are made. However, the pricing formula also involves some risk in that the cost components may be far removed from actual costs when production is carried out. Expected farm prices under the two different pricing mechanisms are also not identical. The producers' and processors' expected utility of profits under each pricing mechanism is computed. The bargaining pricing mechanism generally yields higher expected utility for producers than the formula‐based price. Conversely, processing firms obtain a higher expected utility under the formula‐based pricing than under the bargaining framework. These conclusions critically hinge on the size of the producers' margin component in the formula‐based price. In that sense, the formula‐based pricing mechanism did not lessen the significance of relative bargaining strengths in establishing the distribution of welfare in the chicken industry. Des négociations bilatérales entre les producteurs de poulet et les entreprises de transformation déterminaient le prix du poulet vivant en Ontario de 1995 à 2002. Une formule de prix établie en fonction des coûts de production des producteurs de poulet fut introduite en 2003. Ce mécanisme réduit le risque auquel sont confrontés les transformateurs et les producteurs parce que le prix du poulet vivant est connu lorsque les décisions de production sont prises. Cependant, la formule de prix comporte aussi un risque dans le sens où la composante du coût dans la formule de prix peut être différente des coûts réels de production du poulet vivant. Les prix espérés du poulet vivant sont aussi différents dans les deux systèmes de prix. L'utilité espérée des profits pour les producteurs et les transformateurs de poulet est calculée dans les deux mécanismes. Le modèle fondé sur la négociation génère une utilité espérée des profits plus élevée pour les producteurs que la formule de prix. À l'inverse, les transformateurs obtiennent une utilité espérée des profits plus élevée selon la formule de prix que selon le modèle fondé sur la négociation. Ces conclusions sont étroitement liées à la taille de la marge des producteurs utilisée dans le calcul de la formule de prix. Dans ce sens, l'introduction d'un nouveau mécanisme de détermination des prix n'a pas modifié l'importance du pouvoir relatif de négociation dans la distribution du surplus économique au sein de la filière canadienne du poulet.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".