MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091996001 · doi:10.1111/1058-7195.00047

Institutional Arrangements and Public Agricultural Research in Canada

2001· article· en· W2091996001 on OpenAlex
Richard Carew

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Agricultural Economics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaAustralian GovernmentWestern Grains Research Foundation
KeywordsAgricultureRegional scienceAgricultural economicsBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last three decades, public investment in agricultural research and development has made an invaluable contribution to the economic and social well-being of Canadian society. However, in the 1990s, public research agencies were reorganized due to budgetary considerations and changes in research agendas. It is evident that since then, private sector contributions have increased and novel ways of funding research and providing financial incentives have been developed. We present quantitative data to show how research expenditure patterns have evolved in response to institutional and organizational changes in research policy. Data are also presented to show how the federal Department of Agriculture has benefitted from inventive activity. Implications of recent changes in research policy for new funding and financing arrangements are also discussed.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.655
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.197 · 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