Shifting practices and shifting discourses: policy and small-scale agriculture in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reviews the policy directives of national and provincial Departments of Agriculture in Canada and their uptake in practice on family farms in New Brunswick. Using Statistics Canada data, it explores the extent to which farmers' practices have mirrored the agricultural policy directives. It finds that agricultural policy favored industrial farm operations and processing companies and spurred concentration by creating ever larger farms. By documenting how policy discourses shift in tandem with farm practices, the article illustrates how agricultural policy development is a key driver in the structural transformation of agriculture. But this case study also shows that despite their exclusion from policy initiatives, small farms have stubbornly remained part of the New Brunswick's rural landscape.; Cet article passe en revue les orientations stratégiques des ministères nationaux et provinciaux de l'Agriculture du Canada et la mise en oeuvre de ces politiques pour les exploitations familiales au Nouveau-Brunswick. En utilisant les données statistiques du Canada, il examine dans quelle mesure les pratiques des agriculteurs sont en phase avec les objectifs de la politique agricole. Les politiques agricoles ont par le passé favorisé les activités industrielles, les entreprises de transformation et stimulé la concentration par la création d'exploitations de plus en plus grandes. En documentant les caractéristiques et les dynamiques conjointes des discours politiques et des pratiques agricoles, l'article illustre comment les politiques agricoles contribuent effectivement à transformer de façon structurelle l'agriculture. Mais l'article démontre également que, même si elles sont exclues des initiatives politiques, les petites exploitations perdurent dans le paysage rural du Nouveau-Brunswick.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".