Reflection on Farmers’ Participation in Rural Community Cultural Construction
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
Farmers are the subject for rural community cultural construction. Development of rural community cultural construction can not go without participation of farmers. At present, there exist a lot of factors that impede farmers’ participation in community cultural construction. Firstly, basic cultural facilities and occasions are lacking for participation of farmers. Secondly, farmers have no enough knowledge in community cultural construction and have relatively low autonomy in participation. Thirdly, the relatively low cultural quality of farmers also constrains the ability of farmers to participation in community cultural construction. This article puts forward several measures to promote farmers to participate in community cultural construction, such as, to strengthen community education, enhance the quality of farmers and intensify the enthusiasm and ability of farmers to participate; to enlarge capital investment to set up cultural facilities and occasions and to offer solid material foundations for farmers’ participation; to cultivate positively community cultural organizations and to push forward farmers to participate in community cultural construction; to resort to community culture and elegant culture to enhance the rural cultural level and to absorb farmers to participate in community cultural construction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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