MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193941014 · doi:10.3390/agriculture11080799

Global Wheat Market Dynamics: What Is the Role of the EU and the Black Sea Wheat Exporters?

2021· article· en· W3193941014 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miranda Svanidze, Ivan Đurić

Bibliographic record

VenueAgriculture · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMarket Dynamics and Volatility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeEuropean Commission
KeywordsCointegrationBlack seaEconomicsFutures contractPrice formationError correction modelProduction (economics)International economicsWorld marketInternational tradeAgricultural economicsMonetary economicsFinancial economicsMacroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last two decades, three countries in the Black Sea Region—Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan—became global leaders in grain production and trade, and replaced the USA and France as the most previous largest wheat exporting countries. In this study we investigate world wheat price linkages and identify the current “price leaders” of the global wheat market. This empirical analysis is focused on the price relationships between eight of the largest wheat exporting countries and uses a cointegration framework and a vector error-correction model. The results show that, regarding price formation on the world wheat market, the French price is more important for transmitting price signals to other wheat export markets compared to the USA. Furthermore, our results indicate that, despite being leaders in wheat export volumes, the Black Sea wheat prices in Russia and Ukraine adjust to price changes in France, the USA, and Canada. Albeit unrealistic in the short run, the creation of the futures market in the Black Sea region might significantly improve the participation of Black Sea markets in price formation of the global wheat market.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.414

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.169 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultureSame topicMarket Dynamics and VolatilityFrench-language works237,207