NEW GENERATION CO-OPERATIVES (NGC) AS A MODEL FOR VALUE-ADDED AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING IN ALBERTA: APPLICATIONS TO FACTORS AFFECTING CHOICE OF PRICING AND PAYMENT PRACTICES BY TRADITIONAL MARKETING AND NEW GENERATION CO-OPERATIVES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the factors affecting choice of pricing and payment practices by traditional marketing and new generation co-operatives for commodities delivered by their members. These factors include the demographic variables related to type of co-operative organization, level of competition in commodity market, and risk-return perceptions of members and co-operatives. Data for the analysis were obtained through a mail survey. Questionnaires were send to one hundred and ninety five (195) co-operatives in mid-west states of the U.S.A. and Canada. Altogether 93 co-operatives responded to the survey. Mean score analysis, factor analysis and multinomial logit analysis were done. The results indicate that traditional marketing co-operatives are more likely to choose spot market cash price, while new generation co-operatives are more likely to choose pooling practices. Traditional marketing co-operatives appear to be concerned about the members' cash flow needs and members' uncertainty of return; they are also more responsive to increased competitive level in commodity market. New generation co-operatives are more concerned with avoiding the risk of co-operatives' operating deficits and survival of co-operatives. This has implications for new co-operatives just beginning in business.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".