MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2563416395

The effect of input-trade liberalization on nonfarm and farm labour participation in rural Vietnam

2016· preprint· en· W2563416395 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Hoang Xuan Trung, Luca Tiberti

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2016
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment for International DevelopmentInternational Development Research CentreGovernment of Canada
KeywordsNonfarm payrollsAgricultureEconomicsLiberalizationAgricultural economicsIncentiveLabour economicsBusinessGeographyMarket economy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the impact of the trade liberalization of chemical fertilisers on the allocation of labour between nonfarm and farm sectors in rural Vietnam during the period 1993-1998. To do that, we use a panel dataset controlling for fixed effects and instrumenting the volume of chemical fertilisers and the exogenous change in fertilisers’ prices is exploited. The study shows that a higher volume of chemical fertilisers reduces the employment of rural households in the nonfarm sector and increases labour participation in farm activities. A larger use of chemical fertilisers would also generate other complementary effects such as a higher demand for organic fertilisers, increased on-farm hired labour, a bigger cultivated area with chemical fertilisers and a larger number of crops grown with chemical fertilisers. Also, we find that a larger use of chemical fertilisers creates larger incentives for on-farm family labour for small landholders compared to those with larger agricultural land, and that the magnitude of the effects is relatively larger for new farmers.

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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics→Same topicAgriculture and Rural Development Research→French-language works237,207→