The Farm Apprentice: Agricultural College Students Recollections of Learning to Farm "Safely"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A consistent message in the farm safety literature is the need to develop effective interventions to manage the unacceptably high rate of injury and death among farm children. To better understand the influence of childhood farm experiences on safety beliefs, attitudes, and practices, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 24 farm youth attending the Nova Scotia Agricultural College. The interviews were designed to elicit information pertaining to participants' earliest memories of involvement in farm activities, the decision-making processes that led them to assume work-related responsibilities, and the roles that their parents played in their safety training. A common theme of experiencing childhood as a "farm apprentice" emerged across all narratives whereby farm activities were learned primarily through observational learning and modeling of parents and then mastered through repetition. As "farm apprentices," the youths' involvement in dangerous activities such as tractor driving and livestock handling began at early ages, with very little formal training and supervision. Although participants clearly described themselves as being exposed to dangerous activities, they believed that they had the capacity to control the risks and farm safely. Based on our findings, the concept of the "farm apprentice" appears to be integral to the social context of the farming community and should be considered in the design of interventions to reduce child injury and death.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".