Compatibility of Government Guarantees with Flexibility in Canadian Wheat Price Pooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial option theory is used to evaluate Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) price pooling and associated government guarantees. Price guarantees and final payments on the pool can be viewed as special financial derivative products. Financial models are used to evaluate alternative pricing flexibility alternatives within the constraints of the CWB price pooling system and at the same time to provide a measure of the CWB dollars at risk associated with offering these contracts. Flexible pricing alternatives are incompatible with a government price guarantee that is valuable. The CWB dollar risk associated with flexible pricing could be substantial. Les auteurs recourent à la théorie des contrats d'option pour évaluer le système de fixation de prix communs par la Commission canadienne du blé (CCB) et les garanties connexes du gouvemement. On peut considérer les prix garantis et les paiements finals du pool comme un type particulier de produits dérivés. Des modéles financiers permettent d'évaluer d'autres méthodes qui autoriseraient la fluctuation des prix dans les contraintes du systéme de pool de la CCB, mais serviraient aussi à mesurer les risques financiers de la CCB associés à la proposition de contrats. Les autres méthodes de fixation des prix sont incompatibles avec une garantie valable du gouvemement au niveau des prix. La CCB courrait le risque de penes importantes si elle adoptait une politique de variation des prix.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".