Canadian Wheat Stabilization Operations, 1929-35
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I N a period dating from the beginning of the crop year 1929- 30 in the United States, and continuing in Canada until the close of the crop year 1934-35, centralized wheat co-operatives, with the support of government money and credit, operated in the wheat markets of their respective countries on a scale never before possible to any regular market agencies.These co-operatives did not work together and phases of their activities did not strictly correspond in time, but their market policies were similar, and a combined influence on world wheat markets might be expected.A study of this period should yield important lessons in the principles of marketing.It is not yet practicable to bring all relevant facts under review and some movements initiated in this period are still uncompleted.In an introductory way, the developments in connection with the operations of the co-operative in the United States are herein sketched; the developments in Canada are more fully presented, the main elements of the Canadian situation between August 1931 and July 1935 being assembled in graphic form.Questions are raised as to direct effects produced, and more general questions as to the extent to which wheat prices can be influenced by special market operations of this type.In so far as answers seem clearly indicated by the facts under examination, such answers are tentatively suggested.Definitive conclusions on the broad issues involved are not attempted.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".