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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.036
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