MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994149992 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v11n12p136

Retirement Age Farmers’ Exit and Disinvestment from Farming

2019· article· en· W2994149992 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bretford Griffin, Valentina Hartarska, Denis A. Nadolnyak

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisinvestmentEconomicsAgricultureRetirement ageDemographic economicsVolatility (finance)Labour economicsGeographyFinanceIncentive

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aging of farmers in the US today coincides with fluctuating incomes resulting from recent market price volatility and policy changes. We evaluate how farmers’ retirement or exit, as well as their disinvestment from farming in preparation for retirement, are affected by economic and demographic factors. Exit and disinvestment are modeled as the outcome of intertemporal utility maximization, and farm-level data from the Census of Agriculture are used to estimate the probability of retirement-age farmers’ exit and disinvestment for the 1992-2012 period. The results show that farm size matters the most, with larger farms less likely to exit but more likely to disinvest and scale back, presumably to a new optimal size. Demographic factors such as gender, race, and age have statistically significant but relatively small impacts. Regional differences, the size of the non-farm economy, and opportunities to diversify income also affect exit. However, flow economic variables, such as current year return-on-assets and agricultural support payments, are not associated with exit and disinvestment. Given that US farmers are now facing significant income volatility, the findings point to a level of resilience. The results suggesting that current and recent income fluctuations are less likely to drive the exit of retirement age farmers have important policy implications.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207