MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770269965 · doi:10.1093/ajae/aax070

Ownership Restrictions and Farmland Values: Evidence from the 2003 Saskatchewan Farm Security Act Amendment

2017· article· en· W2770269965 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chad Lawley

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Agricultural Economics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand ValuesAmendmentAgricultural economicsBusinessValue (mathematics)Property valueEconomicsLand useLawPolitical scienceFinanceReal estate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An underlying issue in discussions of farmland ownership restrictions is their impact on farmland values and on land acquisition costs for local farmers. In this article, I examine the farmland value consequences of relaxing a particularly stringent farmland ownership restriction in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan Farm Security Act was introduced in 1974 and prohibited non‐Saskatchewan residents and corporations from owning Saskatchewan farmland. In 2003, the act was amended to allow Canadian residents and Canadian corporations to acquire farmland, bringing Saskatchewan in line with neighboring provinces and states that restrict foreign ownership but are open to domestic ownership. I estimate the impact of the 2003 amendment on Saskatchewan farmland values using 1995 through 2010 parcel‐level farmland transactions in Saskatchewan and its neighboring province of Manitoba. The impact of the 2003 amendment is assessed in a series of econometric models that use differential trends in farmland prices in the two provinces before and after the amendment. I find that the 2003 amendment led to a 1.9% to 3.1% per year increase in Saskatchewan farmland values.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations13
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Agricultural EconomicsSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207