MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262017500 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.204255

The Effects of R&D on Agricultural Productivity of Australian Broadacre Agriculture: A Semiparametric Smooth Coefficient Approach

2015· article· en· W2262017500 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Farid Ullah Khan, Ruhul Salim

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAston UniversityUniversity of QueenslandMonash UniversityBinghamton UniversityMcMaster University
KeywordsAgricultureProduction (economics)ProductivityEconomicsEconometricsParametric statisticsTotal factor productivityNonparametric statisticsFunction (biology)MathematicsGeographyStatisticsMicroeconomicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article analyses the role of research and development (R&D) in Australia's broadacre farming by using the semi-parametric smooth coefficient model proposed by Hastie and Tibshirani (1993) and Li et al (2002) and a state-level dataset covering the period 1995 to 2007. While the conventional production function approach only captures the direct effects of R&D, this methodology captures both the direct impact of a change in R&D on output and the indirect impact through changes in efficiency of use of factor inputs in the production process. The empirical results show that once both the direct and indirect effects are taken into consideration, R&D investments significantly increase outputs. The results also show that there are substantial variations in the effects of R&D on output across the states. Such variations need to be taken into account when designing policies for investing public R&D in agriculture.

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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicEfficiency Analysis Using DEAFrench-language works237,207