MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2130703695 · doi:10.1111/ecin.12214

THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY GAP IN EUROPE

2015· article· en· W2130703695 on OpenAlexaff
Wenbiao Cai, Manish Pandey

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Inquiry · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFirm Innovation and Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureProductivityEconomicsAgricultural economicsAgricultural productivityGross domestic productWageValue (mathematics)Per capitaDemographic economicsLabour economicsEconometricsMacroeconomicsGeographyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For 15 European countries over the 1970–2004 period we find large and persistent agricultural productivity gaps, the ratio of value added per hour in nonagriculture to that in agriculture. Comparing the gap in value added per hour to the wage gap between the two sectors suggests that value added in the data is mismeasured. We further find that, controlling for differences in gross domestic product per capita and institutions, the mismeasurement is positively related to self‐employed share of hours in agriculture. Correcting for underreporting of self‐employment income using our preferred correction factor reduces the measured agricultural productivity gap by 38%. These findings suggest that underreporting can account for a significant portion of the measured agricultural productivity gap. ( JEL E01, O47, O52, Q10)

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.135 · 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

Citations21
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic InquirySame topicFirm Innovation and GrowthFrench-language works237,207