TECHNICAL-ECONOMICAL COMPETITIVENESS OF FOOD INDUSTRY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the literature, different definitions of competitiveness exist. The EU Commission (2003) uses as a definition of competitiveness: the ability of an economy to provide its population with high and rising standards of living and a high level of employment for all those willing to work, on a sustainable basis‖. Another definition which is more focused on the manufacturing (Lall, 2001) sectors states: competitiveness in industrial activities means developing relative efficiency along with sustainable growth. According to Canada‘s Agri-Food competitiveness Task Force competitiveness is defined as: the sustained ability to profitably gain and maintain market share (Martin, Westgren v Fischer and Schornberg, 2007). At the firm level, the view of competitiveness can be given as (Buckley, et al., 1988): A firm is competitive if it can produce products and services of superior quality and lower costs than its domestic and international competitors. This paper presents a new approach of technical-economical competitiveness for food industry, and a new type of competitive management of them, so that their technical-economical performance be maximized.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".