Clustering countries of the world according to their business practices in agriculture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aims to cluster countries worldwide by business practices in the agrosector to reveal trends and specifics in applying sustainable methods in agrobusiness management. The analysis covers 26 countries from the OECD database as of 2021. The Word and k-means clustering methods are based on General Services Support Estimate indicators from the OECD: share of agricultural knowledge and innovation system, share of inspection and control, share of development and maintenance of infrastructure, share of cost of public stockholding, which has a determining, statistically significant influence on the formation of clusters. The first cluster included three Asian countries; China is the leader (share of agricultural knowledge and innovation system – 6,529.7 million USD, share of inspection and control – 3177.9 million USD, share of development and maintenance of infrastructure – 12,874.7 million USD, share of cost of public stockholding – 14,668.5 million USD). The second cluster comprised six countries, with the USA as the leader (share of agricultural knowledge and innovation system – 2,908.4 million USD, share of inspection and control – 1,298.0 million USD, share of development and maintenance of infrastructure – 2,392.5 million USD). The third cluster has 17 countries, with Canada being singled out (share of inspection and control – 631.8 million USD and share of agricultural knowledge and innovation system – 683.1 million USD). The results indicate the diversity of countries’ approaches to support and develop their agrosector. Advanced Asian countries and the US invest significant resources in innovation, infrastructure development, and quality control, underscoring their commitment to food security, efficiency, and sustainability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".