MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2218257517 · doi:10.3138/jcfs.36.3.443

Presentation of Personal Control in the Rhetoric of Farm Families Engaged in Business Diversification in Finland

2005· article· en· W2218257517 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karimikko Vesala, Juuso Peura

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Family Studies · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)MarketingTourismBusinessControl (management)AgriculturePublic relationsEconomicsManagementPolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing pressure on farmers to become entrepreneurial. Business diversification on farms is a literal step towards this direction. However, even the diversified businesses on farms are often in an underdog position within vertical networks. The business may be dependent on only one big client. Achieving personal control in the market arena, which is essential for entrepreneurial identity, is problematic in these kinds of situations. The article is based on interviews with 40 farm families engaged in business diversification in Finland. The analysis focuses on the presentation of personal control in the market arena. In one end, there were cases in which the farmer could take advantage of a wide set of marketing and customer related means of control. In the other end, there were cases in which these means of control were practically nonexistent to the farmer. The variation of personal control in the market arena was—to a great extent—contingent on the farmer’s relation to vertical networks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.082
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Family StudiesSame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207