Western Canadian producers’ attitudes towards wheat breeding funding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In 2017, the federal government initiated national consultations for two new crop royalty systems that could be used to support additional crop breeding. In this study, we examine wheat growers’ attitudes towards breeding research and assess their inclination to contribute more to wheat variety development through checkoffs or enhanced royalties. We report a random effect probit estimation for a survey of 877 western Canadian wheat producers that took place from November 2018 to January 2019. We found at least 26% of survey respondents were willing to pay more to support additional wheat breeding. However, this support is contingent on the model for revenue collection and where additional revenue is invested. Producers generally favored increased checkoffs over enhanced royalty collection. Among the royalty options presented, the farm saved seed royalties mechanism had less support than the simpler to implement end‐point royalties mechanism. We also found support is much higher if new royalty mechanisms are used to support university or government programs versus private breeding programs. This result suggests developing widespread producer support for enhanced royalty collection may require broader commitments for funding, ownership, and control of crop breeding programs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".