Alternative methods for environmentally adjusted productivity analysis
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Advances in the productivity with which food is produced around the world have been made possible through the intensive use of industrial inputs that have important environmental impacts. Like standard measures of macroeconomic performance, however, commonly used measures of agricultural efficiency and productivity account only for marketed commodities and inputs, but ignore the environmental effects of these production processes. A more complete analysis of trends in the sector's productivity requires the use of models that incorporate these environmental effects to provide better measures of the contributions of the sector from the social point of view. This paper compares the conceptual merits and empirical performance of alternative approaches that can be employed for this purpose: input distance functions, output distance functions, nonparametric methods, and index number approaches. Each of the methods has relative strengths and weaknesses. The methods are empirically illustrated using data from the Canadian pulp and paper industry.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it