MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291767812 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v9n1p286

Determinants of Domestic Food Price Differentials: Constraints for Intra-Uganda Trade

2016· article· en· W2291767812 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Isaac M. B. Shinyekwa, Alex Thomas Ijjo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicGlobal trade and economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityEconomicsPurchasing powerCommodityLivelihoodTransaction costPer capitaPrice levelPer capita incomePoint (geometry)Quality (philosophy)Agricultural economicsMonetary economicsMicroeconomicsAgricultureMacroeconomicsGeographyMarket economyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper estimates the determinants of price differentials across 79 districts in Uganda. In the framework of the law of one price, we examine the hypothesis that the spatial price differentials are at least partly influenced by transportation and other transaction costs, infrastructural constraints, productivity and commodity output shocks and the purchasing power of households. The study notes the wide range of price differences across the country, which to a large extent can be attributed to the interaction between remoteness and the quality of physical infrastructure. The effect of income <em>per capita</em> on price differentials is relatively uniform across commodities. The findings point towards the importance of strengthening the capacities of farmers and their productivity as a means to improve their livelihoods and foster more efficient markets with faster supply responses to changes in prices. The findings further emphasize the significance of spatial dimension and infrastructure conditions in Uganda, suggesting that infrastructural development must be a core area to reduce price differences in the country.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.578

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicGlobal trade and economicsFrench-language works237,207