MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272660859

Tarımsal Korumacılık, Korumacılığın Ölçümü ve Türkiye [Agricultural Protectionism, Its Measurement and Turkey]

2011· article· tr· W2272660859 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueMPRA Paper · 2011
Typearticle
Languagetr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtectionismAgricultureEuropean unionInternational tradeOrder (exchange)ChinaInternational economicsEconomicsBusinessAgricultural economicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study reviews conceptual framework of agricultural protectionism, relevant measurement issues, and changes in agricultural protectionism with time in selected countries based on the composition of supports. When measuring the levels of agricultural protection, OECD method, the most widespread one, was employed, and related criticisms were discussed. In order to determine levels of protection, 11 countries, which are thought to have a significant role in the world agricultural markets and/or in terms of protectionism, were selected. These countries were grouped as low, medium and high protection countries, based on their Nominal Assistance Coefficients. Further, differing applications and specific conditions of those countries were discussed. Producer Support Estimate Percentages, Nominal Assistance Coefficient and Nominal Protection Coefficient were used to analyze changes in the protection level of the countries. Nominal Assistance Coefficients are found to be as follows: 1,04-1,11 in low protection countries (Australia, Brazil, China), 1,16-1,43 in medium protection countries (United States of America, European Union, Canada, Russia, Turkey) and 2,12-2,76 in high protection countries (South Korea, Switzerland, Japan). Although share of decoupled payments in support compositions increases, share of market price supports causing price distortions is still high. Furthermore, it was also observed that importance of environmental issues is increasing in almost all countries. Based on nominal protection coefficient, it can be said that countries are protecting staple crops more. In this case, concerns of the countries on being self sufficient at least for these crops and decreasing their dependency on world markets are affecting the decisions of those countries. Hence, it can be concluded that agriculture will remain as the most controversial issue in free trade negotiations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.878
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.138 · 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