‘… Silver in the Stars and Gold in the Morning Sun’: Non-farm Rural Landowners' Motivations for Rural Living and Attachment to their Land
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Studies have identified that, given the opportunity, the majority of North Americans would prefer to live in small towns and rural areas. This preference is based in aesthetic notions linked to landscape features, personal meaning, and perceptions. In order to understand how the growing non-farm rural landowner population will influence the rural landscape, this research explored the motivations of non-farm rural landowners for living in rural areas, and their perceptions of their property. It involved five preliminary focus groups with farm and non-farm landowners owning land in rural, urbanising rural, and urbanised rural areas, and four final focus groups. The research also included a survey of 944 landowners in Southern Ontario. People choose to live in rural areas because they are quiet, natural, open, private, and clean. In contrast, people chose to buy their properties for very practical reasons: location, cost, availability and quality of resources, and size. Results suggest that non-farm rural landowners prefer landscapes with trees and water, and landscape health, restorative benefits, and aesthetic quality are crucial. Associations with family, history, and activities provide the affective connection which supports ongoing efforts on their land.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it