MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2581192578

Unearthing the power in GMO discourse: An analysis of Canadian agriculture and agrifood debates

2017· dissertation· en· W2581192578 sur OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Wesley Tourangeau

Notice bibliographique

RevueUWSpace (University of Waterloo) · 2017
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineAgricultural and Biological Sciences
ThématiqueOrganic Food and Agriculture
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesEuropean CommissionDairy Farmers of CanadaAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Mots-clésAgricultureCritical discourse analysisPower (physics)Political scienceDiscourse analysisSociologyInternational tradeBusinessGeographyLinguisticsPoliticsLawIdeologyArchaeologyPhilosophy
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

The overall purpose of this doctoral research project is to add to our knowledge and understanding of power relations embedded in discourses regarding Canadian agriculture and agrifood debates. Power can be obscured by discourse, and discourse infiltrates acts of power. The primacy of scientific knowledge, specifically reductionist versions of modern science, in decision-making on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is a fitting example; science-based information plays a critical role in safety assessments, while also holding a discursive role in the legitimation of GM technology. As such, we need to take a closer look at acts of speaking and writing about GMOs—the complex, historically embedded context of debating over the benefits and risks of agricultural biotechnology through conversations, publicity materials, news media, and other forums. To achieve this more detailed examination, this thesis examines power relations through a broad, multi-dimensional lens, from the immediate and overt interactions of actors engaging in decision-making processes, to the embedded and amorphous influences of social norms and histories. The overarching research question for this study is: In what ways do conceptualizations of power and discourse help to further our understandings of disputes over genetically modified organisms in Canada? This question guides this project through case studies regarding present issues and contexts in Canadian agriculture and agrifood debates, focusing on three different discursive arenas. \n \n\tFirst, the thesis examines pro-biotech and anti-biotech discourses to add new insights concerning the power relations embedded in efforts to inform public opinion on the topic of agricultural biotechnology. This analysis highlights the Canadian state’s overall positive position toward agricultural biotechnology, which provides leverage to pro-biotech public relations while delimiting anti-biotech campaigns. Further, it illustrates that the potency of pro-biotech frames is sustained by historically and culturally embedded norms and values. These findings uncover a clearer picture of the complexity of power relations within agri-biotech discourse, and the extent to which anti-biotech groups are disadvantaged in these debates. \n \n\tSecond, an analysis was performed on the parliamentary proceedings of Bill C-18, Canada’s Agricultural Growth Act, which amended several pieces of agricultural legislation. This article contributes to a broader and more integrated approach to exploring the ways in which power dynamics are articulated in law and policy debates. Discourse analysis of 32 parliamentary documents helps to shed light on a range of patterns regarding relations of power and control in the text and context of these debates. Based on this analysis, I discuss the relations of power which work together in an imbricated manner to produce an imbalanced climate for agriculture and agrifood law and policy development—one that prioritizes economic liberalization, global competitiveness, and private property rights. \n \n\tThe third and final case study focuses on news media discourse regarding the introduction of genetically modified alfalfa in Canada. Based on a discourse analysis of 88 news reports on GM alfalfa published over a four year period, this study identifies constitutive power relations that influence the direction of reporting. Specifically, this news coverage is influenced by normative conditions regarding news values and media culture which shape the report writing and editing process, and neoliberal normative assumptions that help to re-embed dominant knowledges regarding market mechanisms and private property rights. \n \n\tThis doctoral research project makes contributions to knowledge through an interdisciplinary analysis of power and discourse in Canadian agriculture and agrifood debates. The three case studies offer substantive empirical contributions to the areas of Canadian agriculture and agrifood studies, particularly regarding GMOs. As an interdisciplinary project, this research contributes to literatures across sociology, environmental studies, science and technology studies, and political science. Furthermore, important insights are developed from the fusion of a four-dimensional power framework with methods of discourse analysis. Future research could benefit from an elaboration of the theory-method approach outlined in this study. Discourses and power relations are co-constructed in varied contexts and necessitate an approach that engages with such dynamics.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,011
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,949
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,868

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0110,024
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0110,021
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0510,029
Communication savante0,0180,005
Science ouverte0,0030,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,184
Écart entre enseignants0,177 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2017
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUWSpace (University of Waterloo)Même sujetOrganic Food and AgricultureTravaux en français237 207