MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124470397

Vertical Linkages in Agri-Food Supply Chains: Changing Roles for Producers, Commodity Groups, and Government Policy

2003· article· en· W3124470397 on OpenAlexaff
Linda M. Young, Jill E. Hobbs

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransparency (behavior)NegotiationIndustrial organizationBusinessGovernment (linguistics)CommodityAgricultureSupply chainInvestment (military)Work (physics)Production (economics)EconomicsMarket economyMarketingMicroeconomicsPolitical sciencePoliticsEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Market developments arising from closer vertical linkages in agri-food supply chains have given rise to a variety of issues. This paper outlines key issues and discusses possible responses by producers, their associations, and government. A vision of the future organization of agricultural production serves as a basis for discussion. The continued increase in contracting between producers and processors is accompanied by issues of contract transparency, terms, negotiation, and dispute settlement. Other ramifications include producer access to supply chains and the decline of spot markets. Furthermore, the development of agricultural biotechnology products may force a rethinking of the rationale for public investment in agricultural research and development. Evaluation of market power needs to account for efficiency gains from nonstandard forms of organization to achieve a balanced appraisal of the public interest. Agricultural economists are urged to evaluate new forms of firm and industry structure on the basis of how they work in practice rather than in comparison to an ideal form.

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 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207