MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199710406 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.399647

Status and growth in fish export from India

2015· article· en· W3199710406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hemant Sharma, S. S. Burark

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fisheries sector plays a significant role in the Indian economy in terms of its contribution to growth and development. The contribution of fisheries sector to Indian merchandise trade and to world fishery trade is substantial.. Fish production has increased from 7.52 lakh tonnes (5.34 lakh tonnes for marine and 2.18 lakh tonnes for inland fisheries) in the year 1950–51 to 114.09 lakh tonnes (36.41 lakh tonnes for marine and 77.69 lakh tonnes for inland fisheries) in 2016–17. The growth sector of fish sector contributes through its share in GDP and foreign exchange earnings gained through the export of fish and fishery products. During 2016–17, the volume of fish and fishery products exported from India was 134948 tonnes worth Rs.378709.0 crores. The export mainly consist of frozen shrimp verities (41.10%) followed by fin fish (25.64%), frozen squid (7.32%), and frozen cattle fish (5.02%), during 2017–18. The paper tries to see the revealed comparative advantage of India of this sector with its Competitors and the findings show that India's export potential for fishery product have continuously improved in the study period and the fishery sector has strong comparative advantage in terms of total world's fishery exports. India is more advantageously placed than Canada, Chile, Russian Federation, Spain, Sweden and United States of America. The analysis suggests that India is comparatively in an advantageous position compared to its competitors.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.217
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicAgricultural Economics and PracticesFrench-language works237,207