Price Discovery and Captive \nSupply Implications for Alberta \nBeef Producers and Feeders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concerns about potential impacts of captive supply on fed cattle prices have been present for several years in \nboth Canada and the US. In Canada, the magnitude of concern escalated during closure of the US border to fed \ncattle trade (May 2003 to July 2005) and has remained at an elevated level. Many producers in both Canada and \nthe US argue that presence of captive supplies results in lower cash fed cattle prices. These concerns have \nmotivated policy proposals targeted toward controlling how fed cattle can be marketed and who can own and \nfeed cattle. However, captive supply arrangements evolved out of economic incentives of cattle producers and \nbeef packers to engage in new business arrangements. Therefore, policies that may curtail such practices are \nmet with considerable opposition by those who enjoy direct benefits from these arrangements. This study was \ndesigned to assist Alberta Beef Producers in their assessment of captive supplies and possible action paths. We \nsummarize what we know about the impacts of captive supply on fed cattle markets and identify market \ninformation and research needs related to fed cattle markets and captive supply in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".