MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096652288

marketing programs. A REVIEW OF THE EFFECTS OF AUSTRALIAN WOOL MARKETING INITIATIVES ON THE ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SELECTED VARIABLES IN THE GLOBAL WOOL MARKET

2005· article· en· W7096652288 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoolConsumption (sociology)TextileClothingQuarter (Canadian coin)CommodityOdds
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.273 · 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.

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207