Analysis Of Production Structure Of The Canadian Pulp And Paper Industry : 1961-1996
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A translog cost function with factor inputs of capital, labor, energy and materials was estimated for the Canadian pulp and paper industry over the period of 1961 to 1996. The results show that, the production technology can not be specified by a Cobb-Douglas production function and it is not Hicks- neutral. It was found out that, the industry is characterized by labor-saving and capital, energy and materials-using technical change. The estimated production function indicated the existence of economies of scale, although the size of the scale is not as large as those estimated for the European Union and the United States pulp and paper industries. Estimates for Allen's elasticities of substitution show that, all the factor inputs were found to be highly substitutable among each other. In addition, estimates for price elasticities were found to be sensitive to a change in their own price and relatively speaking, the demand for capital was found to be more responsive to changes in prices of energy and materials and the demand for materials was also found to be sensitive to changes in price of labor and energy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".