Public involvement processes, conflict, and challenges for rural residents near intensive hog farms
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
Abstract Large-scale hog operations have generated intense conflict in rural communities in North America, and more recently in Alberta, Canada. The structure and process of public involvement processes for intensive hog operations influences how well the core issues of concern are addressed by public officials and pork producer proponents. This study reports interview findings from 43 key players in intensive hog operation controversies across four cases in Alberta, and summarizes four inter-related areas of the public participation processes that affect levels of trust among stakeholders, thereby altering the perceived fairness and the balance of power: (1) the timing of the public participation process; (2) information sharing; (3) accessibility of the process; and (4) accountability of public institutions and policies. Recent changes to the regulations of intensive livestock operations will unlikely address core issues of conflict without incorporating the above elements of democratic public involvement processes.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it