Market Behaviour, Arrivals, and Price Behaviour of Cumin in Mandor Market of Jodhpur District, Rajasthan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study was conducted in Jodhpur district of Rajasthan. Two tehsils, namely Looni and Falodi were selected on the basis of highest production and area. Six villages were selected randomly from the selected tehsils. The present study was carried out to ascertain the marketable surplus, sales pattern, market arrivals, and prices in the cultivation of cumin crop. Primary as well as secondary data were utilized in the study. The marketable and marketed surplus ranged between 95% to 97% on different sized farms. The sample farmers disposed of 85.74% surplus cumin seed in the Mandor regulated market, and only 14.26% of the surplus cumin seed was disposed in the villages to village traders. 53% was sold in the first quarter immediately after harvest (March to May), and the remaining 47% was marketed in the remaining three-quarters of the year (August to February). Small-size farmers disposed off their total surplus cumin seed in one lot as against the medium and large-size farmers, who disposed off their total surplus in two and more lots. It was noted that 63% of the cumin produce arrived in the first quarter (March-May) of the year. The arrivals were 17.93%, 8.54%, and 10.02% in the second, third, and fourth quarters. Farmers got 10.36% higher price by selling cumin in the second quarter over the post-harvest season (peak season or first quarter). Sale of cumin in the third and fourth quarters of the year was not found to be advantageous. The correlation coefficients between monthly wholesale prices and arrival of cumin in the corresponding months and in the subsequent months were -0.578 and -0.588, showing that there existed an inverse relationship between the two. The value of the correlation coefficients was estimated to be higher for the subsequent months than for the corresponding months. The value of the correlation coefficients between yearly arrivals and prices of cumin were negative in four years and was positive only in one year out of the five year study period.
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 | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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".