MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196765117 · doi:10.1111/agec.12674

Bargaining power and risk from substitutability between products attributes the case of specialty eggs in Canada

2021· article· en· W3196765117 on OpenAlexaffabout
Baoubadi Atozou, Lota D. Tamini, Maurice Doyon

Bibliographic record

VenueAgricultural Economics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomics of Agriculture and Food Markets
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBargaining powerProduction (economics)MicroeconomicsNegotiationProfit maximizationEconomicsValue (mathematics)Context (archaeology)Profit (economics)Investment (military)Supply chainDownstream (manufacturing)BusinessIndustrial organizationMarketingOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Supply managementpolicy covers conventional egg production in Canada and uses production costs to determine producer prices. The context differs for specialty eggs since graders and farmers individually negotiate the price premiums. Because specialty egg production, such as cage‐free or organic production, involves important fixed‐cost farm investment, it is of interest to assess potential bargaining power in the value chain, especially given the significant commitments from Canadian retail stores and fast food restaurants to move exclusively to cage‐free eggs in the coming years. This article develops a theoretical model of joint profit maximization and price adjustment under risk. Due to data availability, a reduced version of the proposed model is used to empirically test the bargaining power along the value chain for specialty eggs. Although the estimations concentrate on the bargaining power of producers, other actors in the value chain are considered. The results show that the bargaining power of downstream actors is greater than that of producers in most provinces and for most specialty eggs.

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)0.000
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 score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgricultural EconomicsSame topicEconomics of Agriculture and Food MarketsFrench-language works237,207