MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093052756 · doi:10.22434/ifamr2019.0120

Incorporating producer opinions into a SWOT analysis of the U.S. tart cherry industry

2020· article· en· W3093052756 on OpenAlexaff
Angelos Lagoudakis, Melissa G.S. McKendree, Trey Malone, Vincenzina Caputo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Food and Agribusiness Management Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicStrategic Planning and Analysis
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityNational Institute of Food and AgricultureMichigan State UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsSWOT analysisAgribusinessStrengths and weaknessesMarketingBusinessAgricultureGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While SWOT analysis is common in strategic management, the academic literature rarely incorporates responses and opinions held by those within the industry of interest. This article contributes to the agribusiness literature by identifying the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for the tart cherry industry and surveying stakeholders to integrate their feedback into the analysis. Results indicate that producer views on the strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats of the tart cherry industry are heterogeneous. Results also suggest that growers perceive consumer interest towards nutritional/healthy and natural food products as the main opportunity for the tart cherry industry, while imports are considered the biggest threat.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0070.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Food and Agribusiness Management ReviewSame topicStrategic Planning and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207