Bibliographic record
Abstract
In England, allotment land-use practices have evolved from the 18th century. They now have a complex contemporary context with agricultural/ horticultural elements. Historically, allotments began as a provision to enable the poor to have food. Further, by law, allotments enabled the poor the right to have access to land. This paper is an exploration of allotments and allotment plot holders in Harlow, England. It examines how deeply-rooted allotments and gardening are in England’s culture and how it reflects the identities and values of tenants. As cultural artifacts, allotments are still about having the right for access to land, but allotments are no longer exclusively for the poor. People from all walks of life now make a personal choice to become plot holders. This inquiry demonstrates a multiplicity of meanings and identities reflected in, and ranging from, the sensory engagement with the land to traditional knowledge about gardening. Further, this inquiry shows the diversity of the allotment/gardening culture. How plot holders create their version of an allotment is enmeshed with personal, local and national ideals, demonstrating innovation, creativity and ingenuity. Globally, allotments are a wellspring for bio-diversity and environmentally friendly practices. Locally, these are social spaces linked to pride, well-being and identities—ideal for community building. Resume En Angleterre, les pratiques relatives a l’usage des jardins familiaux ont evolue depuis le XVIIIe siecle. Leur contexte contemporain est a present complexe, avec des elements agricoles/horticoles. Historiquement, les jardins familiaux ont ete attribues aux pauvres pour qu’ils puissent en retirer de la nourriture. De plus, legalement, les jardins familiaux conferaient aux pauvres le droit d’avoir acces a la terre. Cet article explore les jardins familiaux et ceux qui detiennent des lots de terres a Harlow, en Angleterre. Il examine a quel point les jardins familiaux et le jardinage sont enracines dans la culture anglaise, et comment ils refletent les identites et les valeurs de leurs locataires. En tant qu’artefacts culturels, les jardins familiaux signifient encore le droit d’avoir acces a la terre, mais ils ne sont plus exclusivement reserves aux pauvres. Toutes sortes de gens font aujourd’hui le choix personnel de devenir tenanciers d’un lot. Cette enquete demontre l’existence d’une multitude de sens et d’identites qui se refletent et qui se deploient depuis l’engagement sensoriel avec la terre jusqu’au savoir traditionnel concernant le jardinage. En outre, cette enquete demontre la diversite de cette culture des jardins familiaux. La maniere dont chacun des detenteurs de lots cree sa propre version du jardin familial s’entremele a ses ideaux personnels, locaux et nationaux, demontrant innovation, creativite et ingeniosite. De maniere generale, les jardins familiaux sont des sources de biodiversite et de pratiques benefiques a l’environnement. Sur le plan local, ce sont des espaces sociaux lies a la fierte, au bien-etre et aux identites – ce qui est ideal pour la construction communautaire.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".