MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092550850 · doi:10.1108/00214660780001209

Capital structure, firm size, and efficiency: the case of farm petroleum and animal feed co‐operatives in Canada

2007· article· en· W2092550850 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Finance Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFrontierCost efficiencyStochastic frontier analysisEconomicsSample (material)Equity (law)Capital structurePetroleumCost of equityAgricultural economicsNatural resource economicsBusinessEconometricsCost of capitalIndustrial organizationMicroeconomicsProduction (economics)Finance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the cost structure and cost efficiency for an unbalanced sample of 42 animal feed and 115 farm petroleum co‐operatives in Canada over the period 1984‐2001 using heterogeneous technology stochastic frontier models. The parameter estimates of the cost frontier and the resulting cost efficiency scores indicate there are statistically and economically significant cost inefficiencies. Further analysis revealed that financial structure and firm size have likely contributed to variations in cost efficiency. Obtaining sufficient equity capital is expected to improve co‐operative efficiency

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.289 · 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