FARMER PERSPECTIVES ON AGRIFOOD SYSTEMS AT THE LOCAL LEVEL: A HAMILTON, ONTARIO CASE STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Farmer perspectives on agrifood systems at the local level: A Hamilton, Ontario case study Julie Fleming, Master of Arts 2009 Department of Geography University of Toronto Exploring ways in which local farmers articulate their place and discuss various pressures and opportunities in the food system is critical to understanding how communities are positioned to respond to growing concerns around environmental and social sustainability in agriculture. To address this issue, in-depth interview were conducted with farmers from 23 small/medium peri-urban farms in Hamilton, Ontario, and analyzed using a critical ethnographic approach. Results reveal participating farmers have complex understandings of their place in the food system; espousing strong counterhegemonic values, utilizing opportunities at different scales, and drawing on conflicting political-economic theories in order to balance values with economic survival. Tensions running throughout farmers’ comments point to barriers for advancing a much-needed collaborative movement towards sustainability and justice in the food system. These findings ground some of the abstract debates in the agrifood literature and offer insights for those working ‘on the ground’ to build more transformative food movements.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".