MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460224083 · doi:10.1111/agec.12250

Farm share of the food dollar: an IO approach for the United States and Canada

2016· article· en· W2460224083 on OpenAlexaffabout
Patrick Canning, Alfons Weersink, Jessica Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Economics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomics of Agriculture and Food Markets
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiberian dollarAgricultural economicsBoomEconomicsCommodityConsumption (sociology)Product (mathematics)Food systemsMarket shareFood pricesFood securityBusinessAgricultureGeographyMarket economyFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article develops a method for using input–output data to calculate a farm share estimate for all food rather than the typical approach of estimating a price spread for an individual product. The farm share of the food dollar is approximately 14% in the United States and 17% in Canada. The farm share increased somewhat during the commodity price boom but has generally fallen steadily by approximately 20% since 1997. While the farm share of expenditures on food for home consumption is approximately 22% across both countries, it is 4% in the United States and 7% in Canada for meals consumed away from home. The empirical framework can be extended to other countries given the extensive use of System of National Account data making international and temporal comparisons possible across farm and food marketing systems.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations50
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural EconomicsSame topicEconomics of Agriculture and Food MarketsFrench-language works237,207