MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A study on the trade direction of fresh and dried figs : Export from Afghanistan

2022· article· en· W4290566353 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hasibullah Mushair, Agha Mohammad Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultural economicsProduction (economics)AfghanGeographyBusinessInternational tradeAgricultural scienceEconomicsBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Figs is one of the most important and delicious fruits. Afghanistan produces 24319 tonnes of figs during 2019 (FAO statistics). It is one of the important commodities in export basket of Afghanistan. The major export markets for figs are India, Pakistan USA, Canada and U Arab Emts.The present study aims to quantify the export performance and changing structure of figs exports from Afghanistan. Secondary data on area, production and country wise quantity exports of figs was collected from FAO statistics, and APEDA for a period of 10 years from 2010 to 2019. Compound annual growth rate was computed for studying the trend in area, production, yield, export quantity and export value for figs. Markov chain analysis was attempted to assess the direction of change in exports. Markov chain analysis results showed that, India is the stable market for Afghan figs and U Arab Emts are less stable markets. The major reasons are geographical advantage and good relations for India which gave competitive advantage over other countries with reference to fresh and dried figs export. India is the main country to import figs in the next five years. It shows high value in terms of quantity and percentage which is more than 90 per cent of all Afghanistan’s figs export.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueINTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCESSame topicAgricultural Economics and PracticesFrench-language works237,207