MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407721238 · doi:10.1504/ijbt.2025.10069518

The impact of CRISPR/gene-edited wheat technology adoption on global wheat trade and welfare: evidence from partial equilibrium analysis

2025· article· en· W4407721238 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Prince Fosu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biotechnology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCRISPRWelfareEconomicsPartial equilibriumGene technologyGeneBiotechnologyInternational tradeBiologyGeneticsGeneral equilibrium theoryMicroeconomicsMarket economy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research analysing the impact of biotech has focused on yield and production of corn, soybeans, cotton, and barley with limited studies on wheat. In addition, most of these studies focuses on countries such as the USA, Canada, and Australia with little focus on Argentina and Russia. This study analysed the impact of gene-edited wheat technology adoption on global wheat trade, consumer welfare, and producer welfare for five producing and 23 consuming countries using the partial equilibrium analysis. The results from trade flows show that developing (low-income) countries mainly import gene-edited wheat from Argentina and Russia. In addition, low-income countries such as Argentina, Mexico, Nigeria, Brazil, Egypt, and Venezuela continue to consume gene-edited wheat in all scenarios. The welfare analysis shows that all consuming countries experience a welfare gain except Japan, Korea, Belgium, Netherlands, and Italy. More so, all producing countries experience a gain in producer welfare. The results of the study suggest that the adoption of gene-edited wheat technology promotes both consumer and producer welfare and total welfare from trade. The outcome of the study has important implications for global food security.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiotechnologySame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207