MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6980318051

Bulk Handling of Paddy and Rice in Malaysia: an Economic Analysis

2017· article· en· W6980318051 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Drying and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut Penyelidikan dan Kemajuan Pertanian MalaysiaAustralian Centre for International Agricultural ResearchInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsIncentivePostharvestEconomic analysisEconomic impact analysisEconomic feasibilityProduct (mathematics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ACIAR has supported a number of projects on the postharvest handling of grains in Southeast Asia.The economics-orientated project on which this report is based was formulated in recognition of the idea that new technology will only be developed and adopted where appropriate economic incentives exist.The results showed that, in fact, such incentives are lacking in the postharvest rice sector of Malaysia.Changing policies which affect these will be a prerequisite to improved technology adoption in the postharvest sector in Malaysia, particularly with respect to grain drying.Suggestions regarding the appropriate level and type of incentives are included.A full bulk-handling system was shown to be less desirable economically than a semi-bulk system under current conditions.Paddy and final product pricing policies were found to have a critical impact on the economic feasibility of the introduction of bulk-handling equipment.The collaboration between the various institutions involved in the project was excellent.This collaboration included not only socioeconomic, but also technical aspects.Since the project concluded, there have been substantive discussions in Malaysia on the results.The policy recommendations stemming from the project are receiving consideration by the Malaysian authorities, and are in the process of being implemented.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicFood Drying and ModelingFrench-language works237,207