MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2787415828 · doi:10.13023/etd.2018.025

Essays on U.S. Beef Markets

2018· article· en· W2787415828 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Elham Darbandi

Bibliographic record

VenueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomics of Agriculture and Food Markets
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomicsBusinessAgricultural economicsAgricultural scienceEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation includes three essays on U.S. beef market. Each essay has looked at this market from a different point of view. The first essay investigates the price adjustment along the different levels of this market. The second essay discusses the impact of food safety incidents on export levels in this market. The third essay considers the environmental loading of U.S. beef market. A summary of each article is as follows. The first essay (chapter 2) analyzes price adjustment of the U.S. beef sector with a focus on the Great Recession. To this purpose, the Vector Error Correction Model (VECM) and historical decomposition graphs are applied to monthly data. The results indicate that retail prices have lower speeds of adjustment than wholesale prices. Also, the magnitude of price adjustment in the presence of the Great Recession, as an exogenous shock, is different for each level of the U.S. beef market. It is concluded that, with respect to both the speed and magnitude of the price adjustment, the U.S. beef sector has an asymmetric price adjustment, pointing to the inefficiency of the U.S. beef supply chain. These results have welfare implications for U.S. beef consumers and producers. The primary objective of the second essay (chapter 3) is to quantify the impact of consumer awareness about beef safety on U.S. beef exports. To do that, an index is used to reflect consumer’s awareness about beef safety based on the publicized reports in the media. Quarterly panel data is applied to the top importing countries, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, and Canada for the period 2000-2016. Applying the gravity model, results show that a 0.8% reduction in U.S. beef exports arose from the foodborne-disease news. In addition, using impulse response functions derived from panel vector autoregressive (Panel VAR) estimation, results show that the negative impact of a shock in food safety news intensified after three quarters, and then diminished slowly over time. In order to regain consumers’ confidence and to compensate for the economic loss arising from a foodborne outbreak, bilateral cooperation among trade partners seems necessary. Investing in any scheme that minimizes the impact of food safety events, such as disease eradication programs, traceability systems, quality labeling, and third-party certification that conveys the safety message to consumers is suggested. The third essay (chapter 4) has two purposes. First, it quantifies the environmental loading of U.S. beef sector by calculating emission levels over the period 1970-2014. Beef cattle is one of the most emission-intensive sectors, which is responsible for 35% to 54% of total GHGs from livestock. Following International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guideline, this study identifies three sources of emissions, including enteric fermentation, manure management, and manure left on pastures. Second, it provides an understanding of consumption-environmental connection related to the beef industry using time series techniques. Finally, it is suggested that providing information to the public regarding livestock and climate change relationship would be beneficial. This knowledge might help to avoid the catastrophic consequences of climate change in the future.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.004

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.155 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUKnowledge (University of Kentucky)Same topicEconomics of Agriculture and Food MarketsFrench-language works237,207