Bibliographic record
Abstract
The central issue addressed in this paper is the attributes preferred by a sample of buyers of durum wheat grown in Canada. Primary emphasis is the value placed on certain visual and nonvisual attributes by US buyers of durum wheat. In addition, a source variable in the analysis is used to test preferences of US buyers for US-source compared to Canadian-source durum. The latter is a method to test whether durum millers in the US believe that Canadian durum is a superior product, a view widely-held in the Canadian grain trade. Results indicate that higher bushel weight has a positive effect on purchase probability, and appears to be more important to buyers’ purchasing decision than protein content, amylase content, or the choice between no. 1 and no. 2 grade. US millers in the study are shown either a) to prefer US-grown durum over that from Canada, or b) to dislike the single desk seller arrangements involved in purchasing Canadian durum. It appears that US managers who grow or market durum wheat have a competitive edge over their Canadian competitors when marketing to US-based durum users.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".