MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530872329 · doi:10.5539/jas.v8n11p59

The Influence Factors Decomposition of Grain Output Increase in China: 2003-2014

2016· article· en· W2530872329 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoquan Hua

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaInner mongoliaAgricultural economicsExponential smoothingResearch ObjectGeographyPopulationEnvironmental scienceBusinessEconomicsDemographyEconometricsRegional science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the world’s most populous country taking up 18.84% of the world’s total population, China’s grain supply has attracted high concerns in the world. This article takes the grain output increase in China from 2003 to 2014 as the research object, and wants to explore the influence factors of China’s grain growth and spatial effect analysis. It employs LMDI method to decompose China’s total grain output increase during 2003-2014. The increase of OFPPU paid maximum contribution to China’s total grain output increase among ACL, MCI and GPP. The conclusion of China’s grain output provincial spatial analysis is that the six provinces including Heilongjiang, Henan, Inner Mongolia, Jilin, Anhui and Shandong, contributed 62.2% share to China’s increase. The results of predicted OFPPU by Exponential Smoothing Method of Hoter-Winter No-Seasonal are that grain growth in China can meet requirements of grain security for China’s population growth and living improvement. The author wishes China can increase investment on land consolidation and renovate facilities for farmland and water conservancy projects.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207