Factors affecting the adoption of conservation tillage on clay soils in southwestern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite significant progress in promoting the wider use of conservation tillage systems among farmers in Ontario, recent evidence suggests that adoption levels remain low overall, and especially low in those areas where agricultural soils are predominantly clay-based. Given the prominence of cash-crop agriculture in these regions, there is continuing interest in understanding the reasons for non-adoption in these areas, and in identifying strategies that would result in greater use of conservation tillage systems. This paper reports on an empirical analysis of conservation tillage adoption among a sample of 50 farmers in Lambton County, Ontario. The purpose of the research was to document and explain variations in the use of conservation tillage, and to assess prospects for increasing the adoption of this technology. A statistical analysis revealed that personal and attitudinal factors were largely unrelated to decisions concerning the use of conservation tillage. Instead, significant factors related to the scale of the farm operation as reflected in both farm size and sales, and in the nature of the farming system itself Subsequent analysis of farmers' stated motivations and perceived barriers suggests that inertia and uncertainty act as impediments to adoption. The findings point to the need for site-specific and farm system-specific information on the performance of this technology, and to the importance of benefits that are readily observable and communicable within local farming communities.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".