Agrifood markets and support in the United States after 1 year of COVID‐19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article briefly outlines the agrifood market and policy situation in the United States after 1 year of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Agrifood markets suffered initial disruptions from both supply‐side and demand‐side shocks but significant adjustments by farmers, processors, distributors, and government kept these relatively shorty‐lived. Substantial support has been provided to farmers as part of $5 trillion of economy‐wide stimulus enacted. This included payments in 2020 under the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program (CFAP) of nearly $24 billion to producers of a wide array of products. These payments came on top of trade‐related support provided to agriculture in 2018 and 2019. The stimulus also included expansion of nutrition assistance programs for low‐income households which were among the hardest hit by the pandemic. I conjecture that the pandemic will influence planning and social policy across the US economy for years to come but will not shift the basic structure of US agricultural production and distribution. Counter‐cyclical farm policy is reentrenched within the political arena and expectations for support levels may have been raised.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".