MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2540066388

Comparisons of Capital Input in OECD Agriculture, 1973-2011

2016· article· en· W2540066388 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
V. Eldon Ball, Sean A. Cahill, Carlos San Juan Mesonada, Richard F. Nehring, Yu Sheng

Bibliographic record

VenueReview of Economics and Finance · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsCapital (architecture)Capital intensityFixed capitalCapital deepeningCapital goodPhysical capitalRelative priceCapital formationPurchasing power parityReturn on capitalCost of capitalMonetary economicsFinancial capitalMacroeconomicsEconomyGoods and servicesMicroeconomicsMarket economyGeographyHuman capital
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a farm sector comparison of relative levels of capital input for 17 OECD countries for the period 1973-2011, with an explicit distinction between land and depreciable assets. Methodologically, we adopt the constant efficiency model to derive capital services from capital stocks and construct the purchasing power parity between countries for crosscountry comparison. Our estimates show that, after accounting for cyclical fluctuation in the relative price of capital inputs, fifteen of the sixteen countries in the comparison had higher levels of capital input relative to the United States in 2011 than at the beginning of the sample period in 1973. Moreover, our analysis shows that increases in relative capital use on farms in OECD countries were accompanied by change in the structure of the capital input, away from land and towards depreciable capital items.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.132

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReview of Economics and FinanceSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207