Agricultural Contract Farming with Social and Community Economy Adaptation. A Case Study: Hin Tang Village Moo7 Non Khong Sub District, Ban Phang District, KhonKaen Province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to understand the history of contract farming at Hin Tang Village including the social and economic adaptation of the community with contract farming production. The study employed the concept of community economy. In-depth interviews were conducted through guided questionnaires; with twenty one key informants, that was concerned with the issues in the village as well as each general household’s information in the questionnaire, were used to collect data from 121 household representatives. The study was to find a model of agricultural, contract farming which incorporates a collaborative management between agricultural companies and farmers. The companies provided materials such as seeds, fertilizers and insecticides, techniques for cropping each type of plant and methods of marketing management. The farmers were responsible for the investment of their labor, land, equipments and devices. Both the companies and farmer signed a contract in advance that established the terms and conditions related to the number and quality of products the farmers were going to produce and sell to the companies. However, this contract farming yielded an inequity between the companies and the farmers as companies had an advantage over the farmers due to the fact that they controlled the production systems and markets. Although the farmers were at a disadvantage, the companies did not force them into a contract; rather, they compromised to solve the problem as an installment debt by reason of business. However, these farmers had already adapted to their economic and cultural lifestyles and social relationships to live under the contract farming based system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".