MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3150767179

IMPACTS OF U.S. COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING ON U.S. HOG PRODUCERS

2003· preprint· en· W3150767179 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kevin Grier, David M. Kohl

Bibliographic record

VenueRePEc: Research Papers in Economics · 2003
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagePurchasingLivestockBusinessEconomic impact analysisAgricultural economicsOrder (exchange)Variety (cybernetics)International tradeAgricultural scienceEconomicsGeographyMarketingPolitical scienceFinance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) is a component of the 2002 US Farm Bill. The provision requires that fresh meat and produce be labeled as to the country of origin at retail in the United States. For a variety of reasons that have been addressed in previous research projects, (Meyer and Hayes for example) COOL could potentially result in the reduction or elimination of the trade in livestock between Canada and the United States. More particularly, for the purposes of this project, COOL could eliminate the annual movement of up to 6 million hogs from Canada to the United States. The purpose of this project is to identify the possible economic, structural and social damage COOL could inflict directly on US hog farmers and processors if the imports of Canadian hogs were stopped. In order to achieve that purpose, the project had the following objectives: 1. Search and examine existing research on the impact of COOL in the United States. 2. Profile US farms purchasing Canadian weanlings. 3. Determine the economic disadvantage from the loss of Canadian weaner imports due to COOL. 4. Determine the social, environmental and economic cost of building U.S. sow units. 5. Determine the economic disadvantage on the US pork packing sector. 6. Determine the potential hog price impact. 7. Examine cost of compliance issues.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRePEc: Research Papers in EconomicsSame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207