MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021395578 · doi:10.1111/cjag.12232

Risk management in Canada's agricultural sector in light of COVID‐19

2020· article· en· W3021395578 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Alan P. Ker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural risk and resilience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureGovernment (linguistics)AgribusinessPandemicBusinessCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Risk managementEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomic policyEconomicsFinanceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The unexpected introduction and spread of COVID‐19 has presented significant challenges for every aspect of Canadian society. Although the food and agricultural sector is positioned better than most, there are many risks that will need to be managed in the coming months. The suite of Federal‐Provincial‐Territorial Business Risk Management (BRM) programs delivered under the Canadian Agricultural Policy framework are meant to assist farmers in managing risks; however, there are no corresponding specialized programs for agribusinesses. The underlying structure of the BRM program was developed decades ago and certainly not with any thought to the possibility of a global pandemic. This article considers to what extent the BRM program and, more broadly, government programming will assist farmers in managing new risks. By default, the article is speculative in nature given that we are currently at the onset of the pandemic in Canada.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.136 · 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

Citations64
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicAgricultural risk and resilienceFrench-language works237,207