MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

WORLD FOOD CRISIS: CAUSES, TRENDS AND STRATEGY

2009· article· en· W2945948677 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Farha Naz Ghauri

Bibliographic record

VenueIBT Journal of Business Studies · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood pricesPovertyAgricultureDevelopment economicsEconomicsPoliticsFood securityBusinessEconomic policyPolitical scienceGeographyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The world is in the midst of a food crisis. The UN Chief Mr. Ban has rightly opined that the steeply rising price of food has developed into a real global crisis. Local manifestations in the shape of food riots and political protests should not obscure the global cause of the problem. Soaring food prices have created inflationary risks not seen in years. Food prices have risen 83 per cent in the last three years, bio-fuels accounting for a 30 per cent price hike. One hundred million live are endangered and 30 million have been dragged down into poverty by bio-fuel prices. Agricultural economists say that unless and until aggressive farm reforms are initiated in developing nations, especially emerging countries, the crisis could get much worse. But the future looks food with better prospects. India may lift restrictions on wheat and rice exports. Good output of rice is expected from India, Thailand and Vietnam. Bumper wheat output from India, Australia, the US and Canada. The United Nations must take immediate action in a concerted manner. Hence, there has been an urgent need to evolve a sound and effective strategy to overcome the crisis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIBT Journal of Business StudiesSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207