MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030387233 · doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v1i2.57

Farmageddon: The True Cost of Cheap Meat

2014· article· en· W2030387233 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rita Hansen Sterne

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPurchasingAgricultureFood systemsArable landPerspective (graphical)Consumption (sociology)MarketingBusinessAnimal welfareSet (abstract data type)Food securityComputer scienceSociologyEcologySocial scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food systems include many issues interconnected through complex relationships. Some writers examine one part of the food system in depth but—from my perspective as a management student—a strength of Farmageddon: The True Cost of Cheap Meat is that it examines food systems by systematically connecting a broad set of issues in its analysis of the widespread adoption of the industrial farming model. This model, the authors argue, requires vast tracts of arable land, makes broad and lifelong use of antibiotics in farm animals to minimize disease and encourage rapid growth, and promotes an increasing use of grain for animal feed rather than for human consumption. Throughout the book, the authors share evidence in an effort to encourage consumers to reflect on the implications of the system we support when purchasing our meat cheaply. The authors have written this book from their experiences as animal welfare activists for a broad audience, but focus their attention on costs that have been unaccounted for in the industrial food system.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.889
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations50
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentationSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207