MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366446371 · doi:10.3138/cjpe.24.005

Coûts de transaction et politiques agri-environnementales

2009· article· en· W4366446371 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Dominique Vollet, Jean-Marc Callois, Olivier Aznar, Martin Yelkouni

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Program Evaluation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransaction costInformation asymmetryDatabase transactionBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Public policyIndustrial organizationPublic economicsEconomicsEnvironmental economicsFinanceEconomic growthComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: This article proposes an analytical framework and method for measuring transaction costs associated with the application of French agri-environmental policies. Transaction cost theory attempts to take into consideration the effect of costs involved in drawing up and securing contracts for economic organization and efficiency. Originally developed to understand forms of industrial organization, it has proven relevant in the assessment of public policies, in particular territorial and environmental policies involving a large number of players, often with diverging interests, which raises important issues of information asymmetry. The proposed method is applied to two highly different initiatives, one fairly standard («grass premium») and the other localized («local farming contract»). The diverse forms transaction costs may take for the various players involved (government departments, professional organizations, farmers) are shown, as is the usefulness of analysing these costs for an accurate evaluation of the effectiveness of the policies.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Program EvaluationSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207