MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2760089111 · doi:10.1017/aae.2017.16

BANKERS’ FORECASTS OF FARMLAND VALUES: A QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION

2017· article· en· W2760089111 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Todd Kuethe, Todd Hubbs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Applied Economics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReal estateLand ValuesQuarter (Canadian coin)EconomicsQualitative analysisAgricultureEconometricsAgricultural economicsActuarial scienceQualitative researchFinanceLand useGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study evaluates the farmland price forecasts provided by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago's Land Values and Credit Conditions Survey from 1991: quarter 1 (Q1) through 2016: Q1. Prior studies have demonstrated that similar surveys of agricultural bankers provide accurate predictions of the direction of future farm real estate values through qualitative forecast evaluation. This study extends the existing knowledge base by converting the qualitative responses to quantitative expectations. The quantified expectations are then subjected to additional forecast optimality tests, which suggest that the forecasts are unbiased but inefficient.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.958
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207