MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W25585122 · doi:10.1021/jp511500k

Används ekonomiska planeringshjälpmedel i lantbruksföretag

2010· article· en· W25585122 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Glenn Birksø Hjorth Andersen, Johan Jansson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry A · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsWork (physics)Investment (military)Production (economics)BusinessMarketingEconomicsEngineeringPolitical scienceMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In agricultural educations you learn to use different economic planning tools, as basis for decision. The purpose and goal of this work has been to find out if economic planning tools are used by the farmers in Sweden. We choose to do an investigation through personal interviews, and used an inquiry to get as equivalent answers as possible from the farmers. This work contains a literature study with relevant facts about the questions that is brought up in the inquiry. This study of literature explains shortly some different calculation methods and bases for decision. It also contains useable information that is important to know before an investment. The questions that are asked to the farmers have focused on the use of calculation methods and economical planning tools. We wanted to get an overview of what farm firms use as basis for decisions. Therefor the study only contains a few and overall questions. In the investigation, eleven companies with varied econom ic turnover and orientations have As far as possible personal interviews has been done, we choose that method to get as truthful answers as possible. It has also been possible to explain the uestions more thoroughly, to avoid misunderstandings. Almost every company had more than one production orientation, but common for all companies where that they had some kind of crop cultivation. The main part of the companies had an economic turnover between three and ten million Swedish kronor. In the investigation, most of the companies used some kind of calculation method before an investment. This calculation was mainly performed by the farmers themselves, only a few companies hired external help. Only a few companies used liquidity calculations, and when it was used it was in connection with larger investments. One interesting result was that the main part of the companies did some kind of sensitivity analysis before an investment. One of the company manager pointed that this was one of the most important aspects in decision making before an investment. Cost accounting for production follow up was used by the main part of the companies, either in the whole company or in special production branches. All the farmers answered every question in the inquiry except for the last two questions that was not necessary because of the answers in the earlier questions. The uses of economic planning tools are widely extent in farm firms, and that shows that it is important for decision making in the firms.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.015

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Physical Chemistry ASame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207