An examination of the risk-return relationship for pork processing companies in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, Canadian and US pork industries have undergone significant restructuring and substantial consolidation. The objectives of this study are to determine whether the risk-return relationship for Schneider, Maple Leaf, Smithfield and IBP, which are four large pork processing companies in North America, varies over the period January 1990 to November 2000. In addition, this study will determine which factors affect the risk-return relationship for these companies and measure associated changes to systematic and nonsystematic risk. These objectives are met using a single index model with a fundamental beta and time-varying parameters. Economic and/or market factors hypothesized to affect the risk-return relationship include the hog-feed grain price ratio, the real value of pork exports, exchange rates, the implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture (URAA), removal of Manitoba Pork Marketing single-desk selling status, the Maple Leaf and Smithfield bidding war for Schneider and subsequent Schneider merger with Smithfield, the Maple Leaf merger with a subsidary of McCain, the announcement of the Maple Leaf pork processing facility in Brandon and the Maple Leaf merger with Landmark Feeds. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".