MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121287811

THE EFFECT OF LOST EXPORTS ON U.S. BEEF PRICES

2005· preprint· en· W3121287811 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeremy Mattson, Hyun Joung Jin, Won W. Koo

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2005
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomics of Agriculture and Food Markets
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBovine spongiform encephalopathyAgricultural economicsBeef industryPound (networking)EconomicsBusinessInternational economicsInternational trade
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the discovery of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States in December 2003, U.S. beef exports have declined approximately 85 percent. A number of countries, including Japan and Korea (the top export markets for U.S. beef), have banned imports of beef from the United States, while U.S. exports to other important markets, such as Mexico and Canada, have been well below previous levels. Domestic demand in the United States was not significantly affected by the BSE discovery, but the effect of decreased beef exports on U.S. price is significant. This study examines the effect of exports and other supply and demand factors on U.S. meat prices, and estimates the effect of the drop in exports on U.S. beef and cattle prices. Results indicate that if all other factors remain the same, the drop in exports results in a $0.22 per pound reduction in retail beef prices and a $0.04 per pound reduction in the slaughter steer price. Prices in 2004 remained relatively high, however, possibly due to a decline in U.S. production and strong domestic demand.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicEconomics of Agriculture and Food MarketsFrench-language works237,207