El método ABC, una alternativa para el manejo de costos en la producción de café
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El objetivo de esta investigación es proponer la aplicación del Método\nABC (Activity Based Cost) como alternativa en el manejo de los costos\nagrícolas en las actividades de producción de café, bajo los tres Tipos de\nUtilización de la Tierra (TUT) previamente identificados en la Microcuenca\ndel Río Monaicito, estado Trujillo, Venezuela. Para tal fin se diseñó una\ninvestigación descriptiva de campo apoyada en el análisis documental, utilizando\ncomo instrumentos la encuesta elaborada por el Grupo de Investigación\nde Suelos y Aguas (GISA) y una guía de entrevista. Se seleccionaron\ntres fincas representativas de los tres TUT‘s, de las cuales se recolectaron\ndatos de los costos incurridos en el ciclo productivo del café. Los resultados\nde esta investigación permitieron identificar y describir las diversas\nactividades, sub-actividades, los generadores de costos y los recursos presentes\nen el ciclo productivo del cultivo de café, elementos indispensables\npara la aplicación del método ABC. Este método es una alternativa viable y\nfavorable para el análisis de los costos de producción de café, ya que permitió el diseño de una estructura de costos, a través de la sistematización de la información contable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".