MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906365602

Economic Impact From Farm Investments in Canada

2018· article· en· W2906365602 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCIRANO Project Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultural economicsEconomic impact analysisProduction (economics)Agricultural scienceAgricultureInvestment (military)BusinessGeographyEconomicsPolitical scienceEnvironmental science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study looks at the economic impact of 2015 on-farm investments for six agricultural sectors (hog, beef, cash crops, dairy, poultry and egg) in Canada, excluding production quota purchase. The direct, indirect and induced effect of on farm investments is calculated for the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairies and British Columbia. In Quebec, the model used allowed for the measurement of regional impacts by administrative regions. Comparisons are made between supply and non-supply managed productions. Results indicate that in 2015, Canadian farmers in the six sectors studied have collectively invested more than 9.2 billion dollars that contributed to nearly 89, 000 full-time jobs created and 8.7 billion dollars in the GDP. The stability of farm prices that are characteristic of productions under supply management seems favorable to farm investments. While supply management represents roughly 20 % of farm receipts of the six sectors studied, they represent 25 % of total investments and 28 % of the total GDP generated by farm investments. Moreover, on a per farm basis, supply managed farms create significantly more employment and contributions to GDP than their non-supply managed counterparts. Cette étude porte sur l’impact économique des investissements à la ferme en 2015 pour six secteurs agricoles au Canada (porc, bœuf, récoltes à revenu, produits laitiers, volaille et œuf), mais exclut les quotas de production pour les achats. Les effets directs, indirects, et induits des investissements à la ferme sont calculés pour les régions de l’Atlantique, du Québec, de l’Ontario, des Grandes Prairies et de la Colombie-Britannique. Pour le Québec, le modèle utilisé favorise l’évaluation des impacts régionaux par région administrative. Des comparaisons sont faites entre les productions en mode de gestion ou non gestion des stocks. Les résultats de 2015 indiquent que les fermiers canadiens des six secteurs sous étude ont collectivement investi plus de 9, 2 milliards de dollars qui ont contribué à la création de près de 89 000 emplois à temps plein, et à 8, 7 milliards de dollars du PIB. La stabilité des prix à la ferme qui sont attribuables aux productions en mode de gestion des stocks semblent favorables aux investissements. Tandis que la gestion des stocks représente approximativement 20% des revenus pour les six secteurs sous étude, celle-ci représente 25% des investissements totaux et 28% du PIB total généré par les investissements à la ferme. De plus, sur la base d’une seule ferme, les fermes en mode de gestion des stocks créent significativement plus d’emplois et plus de contributions au PIB que leurs homologues qui opèrent en mode de non gestion des stocks.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.715

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.220 · 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