Community Support Systems for Farmers Who Live With Disability
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
To return to farming following the onset of a disabling injury or health condition is predicated on a supportive environment for the farm owner-operator. The purpose of this study was to examine barriers and facilitators of returning to work after an injury or acquired disability, and to identify community supports (formal and informal) needed and available to farmers. This was a qualitative study using a participatory action research approach that involved a research team, an advisory group of seven stakeholder participants and semistructured interviews with farmers, their spouses, and service providers in the study communities. A total of 11 farmers and 17 service providers took part in a focus group or were interviewed individually with or without the spouse present. Focus group discussions and interviews were transcribed and analyzed using constant comparison method and team consensus of findings. Themes of barriers and facilitators for return to farming were identified as health care services, financial and economic issues, and "hands-on" assistance. Themes were organized into an ecological conceptual diagram depicting barriers and facilitators in the microsystem of the farm family, the mesosystem of the local farming community and regional health jurisdictions, and the macrosystem of the province and/or nation's social, legislative, and economic realities. Enhancing community support systems for farmers who become disabled as a result of injury or illness will require a multilevel system approach that involves health, financial, and labor resources.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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