Objecfives of Agricultural Economics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 1970 mail survey of U. S. and Canadian agricultural economics departments attempted to identify new approaches to graduate education. Areas explored included program objectives, requirements, and procedures. Some evolutionary changes in specific requirements and pro-cedures were identified, although few revolutionary changes in orientation were discovered. sa part of the departmental graduate re-view process at the University of Mas-sachusetts, a mail survey was conducted of other agricultural economics departments in the U. S. and Canada to solicit information about new insights and innovative approaches to graduate ducation in the field. This article presents ome results of the survey. The questionnaire was mailed in the faU of 1970 to the heads of chairmen of 58 U. S. and Canadian academic departments with graduate programs in either agricultural economics of closely related fields. Usable returns were re-ceived from 48 departments. Seventeen offered only the Master's degree, and 31 offered both the Master's and Ph.D. degrees. Questionnaires were completed by department heads of depart-
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".