The dynamics of family farming in North Huron County, Ontario. Part II. Farm–community interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada and elsewhere, there is a growing belief that farming and rural communities have become effectively disconnected from one another. While attention to recent media reporting suggests that incidences of conflict are now as common as examples of support and collaboration, it is suggested that many examples of complementarity remain. These evolving relationships may, however, be linked to the nature of specific farm development trajectories. Such possibilities warrant empirical examination, with attention to known diversity in the family farm sector. This paper reports on an empirical investigation of farm and community linkages in North Huron County, Ontario. The paper builds upon a recent investigation of change in family farming in this region and seeks to document the ways in which local farmers continue to look to their rural communities for support of various kinds. Data are drawn from a survey of farmers in Ashfield and Colborne Townships in 1999. The research explores community linkages around three dominant themes: participation in organisations, purchasing and perceptions and experiences of community support for farming. The findings indicate the persistence of strong linkages between farms and local communities in the study region but point to a potential tendency for disconnection between farms pursuing aggressive expansion and local community organisations and businesses. There is some evidence that jobs and a variety of farm household considerations may form key linkage points between the two sectors, with the importance of these mediated by farm business trajectories and the family life course.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".