MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009228635 · doi:10.5539/jas.v12n4p26

Socio-economic Impact of Chinese Agribusiness Entrepreneurs in Russian Far East on Local Farmers

2020· article· en· W3009228635 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fujin Yi, Richard T. Gudaj, Valeria Arefieva, Renata Yanbykh, Светлана Мищук, Tatiana A. Potenko, Jiayi Zhou, Ivan Zuenko, Diana Kenina

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNanjing Agricultural University
KeywordsAgribusinessFar EastChinaEast AsiaPoliticsExternalityFood securityMiddle EastNormativeEconomicsEconomic growthBusinessEconomyAgricultureGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the liberalization of the Sino-Soviet border in 1990’s, Chinese farmers have been actively engaged in the economy of Russian Far East. Literature suggests that Chinese workers fill a labour shortage, contribute positively to local food security, with negative impacts being more socially normative and political, than economic. So far no economic empirical research exists about Chinese farmers’ presence in Russian Far East. On the basis of a panel data, an econometric model was used to analyse socio-economic impact of Chinese agribusiness entrepreneurs in Russian Far East on local households. Regression models show that presence of Chinese farmers in Russian Far East increases the probability of higher well-being, farm income, food costs and share of Chinese food purchased among Russian Far East households. These results suggest that benefits of cooperation with Chinese farmers and retailers should not be ignored when designing policies towards sustainable development of rural areas in Russian Far East. Possible environmental, social and economic externalities of further soybean production in Russian Far East are also discussed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural ScienceSame topicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207