Termination of the WGTA: An Examination of Factor Market Distortions, Input Subsidies anc Compensation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Input subsidies are common in North American agriculture and create production and trade distortions. As the theoretical discussion in this paper shows, the Crow transportation subsidy was no exception. The Crow benefit was eliminated in 1996 with the elimination of the Western Grain Transportation Act. Under the “pay the producer” approach, farmers in western Canada were compensated for the removal of the Crow subsidy, but the compensation was nowhere near that required to make grain and oilseed producers in western Canada at least as well off as before the Crow subsidy was removed. This policy change satisfied the compensation principle but not the Pareto principle. Reasons are given why this was the case, including very divergent views from various farm groups such as the National Farmers Union, the Alberta Cattle Commission, and the Alberta Barley Growers Association. Les intrants du secteur agricole sont souvent subventionnés en Amérique du Nord, ce qui fausse la production et les échanges. Comme l'illustre la discussion dans cet article, il en a été ainsi pour le tarif du Pas‐du‐Nid‐du‐Corbeau, dans les transports. Cette subvention a été abolie en 1996 avec l'abrogation de Loi sur le transport du grain de l'Ouest. Les producteurs de céréales et d'oléagineux de l'Ouest canadien ont été indemnisés, mais la somme qui leur a été versée était largement insuffisante pour qu'ils restent aussi bien lotis qu'avant l'abolition de la subvention. La nouvelle politique a satisfait le principe de la compensation, mais pas celui de Pareto. On explique le pourquoi de cette situation, l'une des raisons étant les points de vue tràs divergents de diverses associations agricoles.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".