Tillage practices and identity formation in High Plains farming
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
In this article, the authors examine the ideological tensions of organic and chemical farmers in the High Plains. They show that the identity of these farmers is created and maintained through competing systems of tillage and the ideologies that support them, which also shape the agricultural landscape. Specifically, they compare conservation tillage wedded to ‘modern’ ideologies of scientific farming with conventional tillage newly linked to beliefs about both organic and traditional farming, and examine how farmers use these different forms of tillage to create their identities. Roadside farming, recognition and denunciation of other farmers’ practices, and recognition and justification of their own contribute to identity formation. This research contributes to the ongoing discussion of how identity is formed through day-to-day activities in the material world. The plow creates divisions in the High Plains community between organic farmers who continue to rely on this implement in their material engagement with the land and the chemical farmers who distance their practices from the plow as they distinguish themselves as stewards of the soil.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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