A quantitative study of the impact of scientific and technological progress in agriculture on rural economic growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to quantitatively analyze the impact of agricultural scientific and technological progress on rural economic growth.The contribution rate of agricultural scientific and technological progress in place A is measured through beyond logarithmic function model setting, data collection and processing.An agricultural carbon emission measurement model was built, in order to analyze the dynamic changes of total carbon emissions in place A. In addition, the gray correlation analysis algorithm was used to rank the correlation between agricultural science and technology indicators and economic growth in place A. Finally, a regression model is designed to analyze the impact of scientific and technological progress on rural economic growth.The coefficient of the t2 term of the contribution rate model of scientific and technological progress is 0.0013, which is greater than 0, indicating that there is scientific and technological progress in 2017-2023 in place A. The carbon emissions in place A decrease year by year with scientific and technological progress.All indicators in agricultural science and technology inputs can promote agricultural economic growth, and the gray correlation value in descending order is, T3>T9>T8>T1>T6>T4>T7>T2>T5.Scientific and technological progress has a different degree of promotion for the rural economic growth in place A.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".