marketing programs. A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF AUSTRALIAN WOOL MARKETING INITIATIVES ON THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SELECTED VARIABLES IN THE GLOBAL WOOL MARKET
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Directed by Dr. Peter Kilduff. 194pp. Wool, one of the oldest textile fibers, remains an important textile fiber today. However, wool has been in relative decline for more than 100 years, in the process, shifting from a commodity to a luxury good. Nearly a quarter of a century has passed since the last two significant studies on wool consumption were published- Tisdell’s (1977) review of the global wool market and Kirby and Dardis’s (1992) analysis of demand for textile fibers in the United States textile industry. There is a need to expand and update the literature. In particular, research is needed that tests the association of a broader array of demand and supply-side variables with fiber consumption. This research employs independent variable analysis and odds ratio analysis techniques to build upon previous studies ’ explorations of the associations between key independent variables and changes in global mill consumption of Australian wool from 1981 to 2001. Results suggest that fiber prices have the strongest association with Australian wool consumption. Findings also suggest that the associations between the variables reviewed and Australian wool consumption vary greatly across changing periods of wool
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".