Stakeholder Effect: A Qualitative Study Of The Influence Of Farm Leaders' Ideas On A Sustainable Agriculture Education Program For Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers issues related to farmers' control of program planning for non-formal agricultural adult education1. Discussion is based on an empirical study of a $10 million Canadian sustainable agriculture education program that was initiated, created, and controlled by a coalition of farm organizations, supplanting a traditional role of extension. Theories of participatory extension education provide a theoretical framework for consideration of issues in the case. Participation theory guides the formation of partnerships among extension, communities, industry, and government. In the area of sustainable agriculture, however, stakeholders may conflict, presenting challenges to engagement and decision-making processes. Moreover, agricultural education researchers have produced little data to show effects of stakeholder involvement in program planning, putting the extension system at risk of desiring increased levels of engagement without a knowledge base about potential impacts. The study was conducted over a 3-year period using cultural anthropology and participatory action research. Farmers strongly influenced five program elements: (a) staffing, (b) content, (c) instruction, (d) evaluation, and (e) composition of planning group.
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 | 0.018 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".