MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Alternative and Conventional Agricultural Paradigms: Evidence From Farming in Southwest Saskatchewan*

2002· article· en· W2143377636 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Sociology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureSociologyEnvironmental ethicsPositive economicsEconomicsGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Agricultural analysts have suggested that the emergence of an alternative agriculture system represents more than changes in practices; it is also thought to represent a shift in environmental beliefs, values, attitudes, and norms. This means that conventional and alternative systems of agriculture represent distinct paradigms which are informed by two contradictory worldviews. Insofar as this claim is correct, it is possible to delineate, target, and promote one paradigm, depending on the system of agriculture that policy makers wish to encourage. In this paper we seek to clarify the practical application of the two agricultural paradigms by examining the practices, beliefs, values, norms, and attitudes of farmers in southwest Saskatchewan, part of the semi‐arid section of the North American Great Plains. Findings support the view that different farming systems correspond to different worldviews. Strong confidence in the market, however, is not limited to conventional farmers, as suggested by the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it