MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360617200 · doi:10.1111/cjag.12325

Reflections on technological progress in the agri‐food industry: Past, present, and future

2023· article· en· W4360617200 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Getu Hailu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomie · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityTechnological changeFood securityAgricultureEconomicsAgricultural productivityFood processingFood industryBusinessNatural resource economicsAgricultural economicsEconomic growthPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Technological advances—for example, from hand milking to robotic milking—are at the heart of economic transformation and have significantly shaped the agri‐food industry and economic growth throughout history. A look at the lead article of the first issue (and the first volume, 1952) of the Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics (CJAE) 70 years ago reveals an ongoing inquiry within the discipline about how technological progress has shaped how we manage our farms with the implications on aggregate industry productivity and food prices. The topics discussed along these lines in the first issue of the CJAE are still relevant today—for example, challenges with measuring productivity and innovation, diffusion of innovation, technological unemployment, demand for skilled workers, financing innovations, climate change and food security. Science, technology, and innovation for the 21st century hold the potential to foster resilient and sustainable intensification of farm production and productivity growth for the agri‐food industry. In this address, I reflect on the past, present, and future impacts of technological innovations and productivity growth on the agri‐food industry and discuss the implications for future research, welfare, and policy.

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 score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.171 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d agroeconomieSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207