MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1883317298 · doi:10.21083/surg.v4i1.1095

The development and effects of the Ontario Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998

2010· article· en· W1883317298 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
A. L. Best

Bibliographic record

VenueSURG Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal principles and applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationNuisanceBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Production (economics)AgricultureAgricultural economicsPublic economicsNatural resource economicsEconomicsLawPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ontario’s Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998, protects farmers from nuisance actions arising from agricultural methods that are considered “normal farm practices”. Similar “right-to-farm” legislation exists in all Canadian provinces. It demonstrates the government’s desire to protect the agricultural industry, likely for food security and economic reasons, and a willingness to prioritize its needs before those of nearby landowners with possible nuisance complaints. This legislation shifts the definition of “reasonable” used in nuisance complaints from farm neighbours to the farmer. It also transfers power from the courts to government agencies. The processes undertaken by agencies such as Ontario’s Normal Farm Practices Protection Board may be less lengthy, expensive and adversarial than court litigation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSURG JournalSame topicLegal principles and applicationsFrench-language works237,207