The Emergence of Rural Support Organisations in the UK and Canada: Providing Support for Patrilineal Family Farming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A certain type of rural support has emerged since agricultural restructuring of the 1980s. The article draws on research from the UK and Canada to suggest that support in both countries is derived from a patrilineal culture that still dominates family farming in both countries. Such a way of life, it is argued, involves the majority of farming men and women across generations working increasingly hard to ensure farm survival in order to facilitate an overall pattern of farm succession via the male or ‘patrilineal’ line. The article begins by providing a conceptualisation of patrilineal family farming drawing on insights from gender‐informed work on farming identities, political‐economy approaches from agricultural geography and the cultural turn in rural studies. This section will provide theoretical direction for discussion of the research findings. Here the article presents a discussion of the context to and typologies of organisations that emerged and five key findings derived from research conducted with members of the organisations in the UK and Canada. This assists in developing the argument that the emergent organisations are responding to and supporting this way of life and highlights some of the potential implications of doing so. The article has two aims. Firstly, it suggests that family farming in the UK and Canada continues to be predominantly structured by a way of life transmitted across generations which has the overall prerequisite of maintaining farm survival to enable patrilineal succession. Secondly, it suggests that a particular type of support for farming families emerged as a response to perceived threats to this way of life and provides evidence of its enduring nature.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".