MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3210286143 · doi:10.3390/jrfm14110524

Technology Adoption and Learning-by-Doing: The Case of Bt Cotton Adoption in China

2021· article· en· W3210286143 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaoxue Du, Fangbin Qiao, Andrés Trujillo-Barrera

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTotal factor productivityBt cottonChinaProductivityProduction (economics)Agricultural economicsAgricultural scienceEconomicsBusinessBiotechnologyEnvironmental scienceGeographyBiologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the benefits of genetically modified (GM) crops have been well documented, how do farmers manage the risk of new technology in the early stages of technology adoption has received less attention. We compare the total factor productivity (TFP) of cotton to other major crops (wheat, rice, and corn) in China between 1990 and 2015, showing that the TFP growth of cotton production is significantly different from all other crops. In particular, the TFP of cotton production increased rapidly in the early 1990s then declined slightly around 2000 and rose again. This pattern coincides with the adoption of Bt cotton process in China. To further investigate the decline of TFP in the early stages of Bt cotton adoption, using aggregate provincial-level data, we implement a TFP decomposition and show that the productivity of GM technology is higher, whereas the technical efficiency of GM technology is lower than that of traditional technologies. Especially, Bt cotton exhibited lower technical efficiency because farmers did not reduce the use of pesticide when they first started to adopt Bt cotton. In addition, we illustrate the occurrence of a learning process as GM technology diffuses throughout China: after farmers gain knowledge of Bt cotton, pesticide use declines and technical efficiency improves.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.118

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designOther design
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 venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207