MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2262544688 · doi:10.5539/jas.v8n2p109

Technical Inefficiency Effects in Agriculture—A Meta-Regression

2016· article· en· W2262544688 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEfficiency Analysis Using DEA
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInefficiencyEconometricsCovariateMeta-regressionRegression analysisStatisticsVariablesRegressionControl variableVariable (mathematics)Meta-analysisMathematicsEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>A number of studies have examined the effect of study characteristics on mean technical efficiency as the dependent variable. This article departs from these earlier studies by using second-stage inefficiency covariates as key exploratory variables and study characteristics as control variables in a meta-regression. Unlike the vote count method of quantitative review, the parameters of the key variables have desirable properties and enable statistical inferences to be drawn. Additionally, the dependent variable employed is mean technical inefficiency. This is demonstrated using data on technical inefficiency of primary studies in Ghanaian agriculture, fitted to fractional regression models. The appropriate functional form of the fractional regression model is discussed with policy implications.</p>

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.943
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.309 · 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