ANALYSIS OF DIVERSIFICATION EFFORTS IN AGRICULTURAL EDUCATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Study of agriculture enjoys less popularity over time in most of the developed countries, including Canada and the Czech Republic. Analysis in this paper provides interesting findings about activities of agricultural universities to increase enrollment into their programs. While the study is focused on Canada, it is possible to draw implications also for the Czech Republic as many of the characteristics pertaining to the education and agricultural sectors are similar. Enrollment into educational programs in agriculture in North America has been steadily declining in the last several decades. While the overall share of agriculture on national gross domestic product has also been falling, the need for qualified people in agriculture is still eminent as the shift to sustainable agriculture appears to be one of the key priorities of governments in the US and Canada. One of the ways how to facilitate interest of prospective students to study agriculture is to diversify the programs through offering of more major options. It is important to study the motivation and other stimuli for the choice of major in order to adapt the educational programs and attract more students. In the paper, factors influencing the choice of major are studied by analyzing survey data from the only agricultural college in Atlantic Canada. The results show significant differences in the socio-economic background among the prospective students based on the choice of major. For example, students interested in social sciences much more appraise more choices of major than students in biophysical fields. Based on the findings from the analysis, several recommendations are made. It is suggested, for example, that for students interested in biophysical sciences, sport plays an important role and thus, appropriate promotional campaign about recreation and sport facilities of a post-secondary agricultural educational institutions should be conducted. Analysis in this paper may serve many educational institutions in agriculture as a guide how to deal with existing or potential decline in enrollment by diversifying their major portfolio using appropriate promotional campaigns.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".