The Comparative Study Between Chinese Agricultural Cooperative and Canadian New Generation Cooperative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cooperative, as an organization of the weak originated from the need of economic alliance. It is an inevitable result of the development of market economy. But with the increasingly competitive and gradually diverse requirement, there are many organization structures of cooperative in practice. Each has its characteristic, some may stress the help with each other, like traditional cooperative, the others may pay attention to the profit returns, like new generation cooperative. In China, a new legislation related to the cooperative has just implemented for several years, although the management of agriculture cooperatives was unified and the new system supplies played a role gradually, there are still some questions need solve, in which a very important one is whether the legislation has set enough choices for the people who want to adopt the structure of cooperative. According to the current provisions, Chinese cooperative largely can be classified as traditional cooperative which may be suit for most, but in practice, there are more cases about members dominate the cooperative and democracy management mechanisms are often undermined. However, in my opinion, it can be interpreted as the need for the institution innovation from another angle, so it is necessary for legislator to consider system supplying about new forms of cooperative. Key words: Cooperative; New generation; Institution innovation; China; Canada
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".