MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212062355 · doi:10.82308/45828

The impact of the Plant Breeders' Rights Act on wheat productivity : evidence from western Canada

2007· article· en· W3212062355 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xiangxiang Ye

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityAgricultural economicsNatural resource economicsBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant Breeders' Rights (PBR) are a form of intellectual property rights enabling breeders of new plant varieties to have the exclusive right to produce and sell propagating material of their new plant varieties. The existence of effective property rights has been pointed to as a stimulus of increased R&D and productivity. Canada has had legislation to provide PBR protection for about two decades, and is considering further strengthening of the regulatory framework. However, there are few studies that have examined the effectiveness of the legislation on crop productivity. This thesis investigates the hypothesis that the adoption of wheat varieties qualifying for Plant Breeders' Rights has increased overall wheat yields and rate of yield increase. The yield response function models are applied to industry data for western Canada and Alberta, respectively. The empirical results show that the PBR Act had a relatively small impact on wheat yields. Among wheat classes, it had a positive impact for Durum wheat in Alberta.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207