MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400773878 · doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2024.102678

Assessing misallocation in agriculture: Plots versus farms

2024· article· en· W4400773878 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

VenueFood Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSimon Fraser University
FundersEconomic and Social Research Council
KeywordsAgricultureAgricultural economicsEconomicsAgricultural scienceEnvironmental scienceGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine empirically whether the level of data aggregation affects the assessment of misallocation in agriculture. Using data from Ugandan farmers, we document a substantial discrepancy between misallocation measures calculated at the plot and at the farm levels. Estimates of misallocation at the plot level are much higher than those obtained with the same data but aggregated at the farm level. Even after accounting for measurement error and unobserved heterogeneity, estimates of misallocation at the plot level are extremely high, with potential nationwide agricultural productivity gains of 562%. Furthermore, we find suggestive evidence that granular data may be more susceptible to measurement error in survey data and that data aggregation can attenuate the relative magnitude of measurement error in misallocation measures. Our findings suggest caution in generalizing insights on measurement error and misallocation from plot-level analysis to those at the farm level.

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 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 score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.245 · 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