Incentives and disincentives identified by producers and drainage contractors/experts on the adoption of controlled tile drainage in eastern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates incentives and disincentives regarding adoption of controlled tile drainage (CTD) in a region of eastern Ontario, Canada, where CTD could be used prolifically from a biophysical standpoint, but is not. Irrespective of documented environmental and agronomic benefits of CTD, adoption remains low. Surveys and semi-structured interviews with producers and drainage contractors/experts were used to evaluate awareness of CTD and identify producer adoption impediments. Surveys indicated nearly 70% of producer respondents had heard about CTD. Top ranked incentives identified by producers (who adopted) and drainage contractors/experts combined were: soil water retention benefits, increased crop yields, and gratification improving the environment. Top ranked disincentives combined by target groups were: increased farm labor, perceived lack of extension services, and costs. Many producer adopters emphasized motivators grounded in personal or community bearing, such as peer interaction and doing the right thing for the environment. Drainage contractors emphasized adoption impediments tied to a perceived lack of extension support for CTD. Drainage contractors themselves desired more extension support and firm data/research foundations with respect to advocating CTD to clients. With respect to motivation for producers to adopt CTD, this latter point may be critical given that producers highly valued drainage contractors as an information source on drainage practices.
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 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 | 0.005 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".