Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1992, reform of the EU's Common Agricultural Policy has involved several rounds that have gradually changed the method of support from market‐based intervention purchases to direct producer payments. The Single Farm Payment (SFP) was introduced most recently and is claimed to be decoupled from production decisions. This study examines whether or not the SFP induces extra production. The study finds that the SFP provided less production incentives and is less trade distorting than the prior system of compensatory payments. Lessons from the EU policy reform for agricultural policy reform in Canada are also considered. Depuis 1992, la réforme de la Politique agricole commune (PAC) de l'UE a fait l'objet de plusieurs négociations qui ont peu à peu changé les formes de soutien, du système d'achat à l'intervention fondé sur le marché aux paiements directs versés aux producteurs. Le régime de paiement unique (RPU) a été mis en place plus récemment, et l'on prétend qu'il est indépendant des décisions de production. Dans la présente étude, nous avons examiné le RPU afin de savoir s'il stimulait ou non la production supplémentaire. Selon notre étude, le RPU offre moins d'incitatifs de production et entraîne moins de distorsion commerciale que le régime de paiements compensatoires antérieur. Nous avons aussi examiné les leçons qui pourraient être tirées de la réforme de la politique agricole de l'UE et appliquées à une réforme de la politique agricole au Canada.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".