MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926102822 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.351196

Le cadre juridique et administratif des plans conjoints de mise en marché des produits agricoles au Québec

2025· article· en· W6926102822 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Product (mathematics)Control (management)ReferendumPlan (archaeology)Marketing planPayment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assure better marketing conditions for their products, the agricultural producers of Quebec and the other Canadian [Provinces have used the Marketing Joint Plan formula. It is a rather new mechanism that has been added to the other marketing systems (such as the cooperatives) at the disposal of producers, so that they can themselves exercice a better control on the marketing of their products. When a group of producers want to organize a plan, there is ordinarily a referendum held amongst all interested producers. Jt the required majority approves the proposed plan, which is in fact the charter giving the required powers, the plan binds all producers of the designated sector, being thus compulsive for the minority which has not accepted it. The plan is then administered by a Board of producers only, and it establishes the marketing conditions of the product involved by means of a collective agreement negociated with the interested persons or, if not, by compulsary and final arbitration. The Board may also fix most of these conditions by Regulations, and it can establish a central agency for the sale of the product; it can also determine production and marketing quotas. The Board must of course take into account the economic situation and the legal framework of the Federal Canadian constitution. The Producers' Board is also under the supervision of a Public Body, which must settle disputes and assure that the general interest of all the producers, the rights of intermediaries and consumers are protected.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0110.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.002

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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 venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicPesticide and Herbicide Environmental StudiesFrench-language works237,207