MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tomada de crédito e busca por proteção da produção na cafeicultura brasileira.

2023· article· en· W4381838405 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Economia Agrícola · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRural Development and Agriculture
Canadian institutions123 Certification (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessCertificationInvestment (military)Production (economics)IncentiveFinanceExport credit agencyCredit enhancementCredit riskCredit referenceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the importance of rural credit in stimulating investments, funding and marketing in coffee production, and the strategic relevance of rural insurance to investment protection and business competitiveness, this study analyzes the percentages of use of credit and insurance, in relation to the levels of management of companies, size and adoption of agricultural certification, aiming to support the decisionmaking of institutions linked to the provision of services or establishment of incentive programs and access to credit and rural insurance. Information on 1,136 production units in the main Brazilian coffee regions was used. We used the Management Degree Identification Method - MIGG-Café. It was observed that the adoption of credit above 70.0% and rural insurance close to 50.0%. Their joint use is positively correlated to establishments with higher levels of management. It was concluded that there is ample opportunity for evolution in business credit management and risk management in coffee.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.443
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.005

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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