Market analysis and price spread of major spices through different marketing channels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spice growers in northern Vietnam frequently receive less than half the price consumers pay, yet the exact magnitude and location of price losses across marketing stages have not been quantified for the Red River Delta region. This research traced the marketing channels and estimated the price spread for five major spices black pepper, star anise, cinnamon, turmeric, and chilli by surveying 180 producers, 45 village traders, 30 wholesalers, 25 commission agents, and 40 retailers across three provinces (Hanoi, Hai Duong, Hung Yen) during January-June 2023. Three distinct channels were identified: Channel I (producer → village trader → wholesaler → retailer → consumer, handling 54.3% of volume), Channel II (producer → commission agent → retailer → consumer, 28.7%), and Channel III (producer → direct sale via wholesale market or cooperative → consumer, 17.0%). The producer's share in the consumer price was lowest in Channel I (average 48.3%) and highest in Channel III (average 74.4%). Cinnamon showed the widest total price spread (62.0% in Channel I), while turmeric had the narrowest (43.2%). Marketing cost accounted for 18-24% of the consumer price; the remainder of the spread was intermediary margin. These results suggest that strengthening direct channels particularly agricultural cooperatives could raise farm-gate returns by 20-26 percentage points.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".