Economic and social impacts of organic production systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given relatively low adoption levels to date, the potential benefits of organic farming systems are not yet very visible. However, there is growing evidence in the literature that adoption of such systems produces multiple environmental, social, and financial benefits that can solve pressing agricultural problems in Canada. Compared with their duration as conventional operations, most organic farms in North America perform better under organic management. This outcome is usually a product of lower input costs, more diversified production and marketing channels, resilience in the face of variable market conditions, higher premiums, and a better capacity to adapt to weather extremes. However, the performance of farming systems including some horticultural and animal production systems, for which our ecological understanding is limited, is still frequently inferior. The data on social impacts are less conclusive, but there is some evidence that when a community has many sustainable (including organic) producers , there are positive shifts in community economic development and social interaction. The reasons appear to be related to the need to hire more labour, the increased demand for local goods and services, and a greater commitment to participation in civic in stitutions. Key words: Organic agriculture, economic performance, social benefits
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".