MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7008156671

Bales and Balance : A Review of the Methods Used to Assess the Economic Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers in Developing Economies

2008· article· en· W7008156671 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicGenetically Modified Organisms Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le DéveloppementCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsBt cottonDeveloping countryYield (engineering)Economic impact analysisRevenueBalance (ability)Variety (cybernetics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We assess 47 peer-reviewed articles that have applied stated economics methods to measure the farm-level impacts of Bt cotton in developing agriculture from 1996. We focus on methods, although findings are also contrasted and compared in qualitative terms. The central research question assessed by the articles reviewed is: what are the current and potential advantages of transgenic cotton with respect to yield, pesticide use, input cost, revenue and/or profits at the farm-level, by farm type, and geographical region? We find that, while the evidence is promising, the balance sheet remains inconclusive in part because of some methodological limitations and in part because institutional and political context, which is mutable and often ignored, shapes economic impacts, especially over the longerterm. Most often, the contextual factors that influence whether a new variety succeeds or fails are more critical than whether yield advantages can be demonstrated in on-farm trials.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.271

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMOspace Institutional Repository (University of Missouri)Same topicGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchFrench-language works237,207