MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Social Welfare and the Selection of the Optimum Hog Slaughter Weight in Quebec

2003· article· en· W2073348175 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Peter Goldsmith, C. Pomar, Zhisong Tao, J. Rivest

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCooperative Studies and Economics
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)HarmContext (archaeology)Perspective (graphical)Animal welfareSelection (genetic algorithm)Quality (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Production (economics)Interpretation (philosophy)WelfarePublic economicsFunction (biology)Social WelfarePoliticsComputer scienceEconomicsMicroeconomicsPolitical sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceBiologyLawEpistemologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

What is the optimum slaughter weight? It depends from whose perspective. A dynamic systems model is built to analyze the welfare impact of alternative animal genetics, feeding program, feed quality and slaughter weight on producers, processors and the environment. The unique systems approach analyzes eight possible welfare rules and a corresponding harm function to assess animal performance within a multistakeholder context. The model results show there are significant tradeoff problems among producers, processors and the environment. The model highlights how the definition of animal performance needs to be revisited, as it has different meaning to different stakeholders in society. While performance historically was synonymous with production efficiency, with new social and political concerns, this interpretation is not universal. The model demonstrates greater complexities by broadening the set of affected parties.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.528

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.149
Teacher spread0.139 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicCooperative Studies and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207