Breaking Ground by Breaking Bread: A Conciliatory Philosophical Inquiry into the Debate over Industrial and Alternative Agricultures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breaking Ground by Breaking Bread: a Conciliatory Philosophical Inquiry into the Debate over Industrial and Alternative Agricultures Keiran Pattullo Graf Advisors: University of Guelph, 2005 Professor Stefan Linquist Professor Monique Deveaux Debates over agriculture often tie together many interdisciplinary threads and are prone to considerable conceptual confusion. Despite this philosophical ripeness and the overwhelming importance of the issues at stake, agricultural problems have received little philosophical airplay. Since philosophy‟s main bridge to issues regarding the human-nature relationship, environmental ethics, is mainly concerned with issues of how to ground nature‟s value independently of human artifice, it has tended to paint agriculture as inherently degrading. Those in search of an affirmative agricultural ethic have thus tended to draw more heavily from economics or agrarianism, giving rise to a highly polarized discursive environment. The aim of this thesis is to reconstruct and analyze two such positions, an institutional economic defense of industrial agriculture and an agrarian attempt to underpin alternatives. My first two chapters deal with arguments that favour industrial agriculture based on its production capacity and on its efficiency. In the first chapter, I reconstruct these arguments, uncovering and distinguishing normative and empirical assumptions about the operation of markets, the value of efficient production, and the connection between science, technology, and industrialism. My second chapter offers criticisms, concluding that such arguments cannot rule out agricultural principles, policies, and practices that incorporate social goals beyond efficient production. My third chapter reconstructs the main argumentative thread of Paul Thompson‟s agrarianism, which seeks to establish agrarian agriculture‟s political role as modeling properly socio-ecological sustainability. In my final chapter, I argue that we must dispense with agrarianism as an ideology that privileges rural experience, instead focusing on agrarians‟ communitarian and ecological insights. I end by offering a set of ideals that I hope can form the basis of a less polarized, more constructive discussion about how to manage our food system.
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 | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.071 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".