The sources of agricultural information used by farmers of differing socio-economic characteristics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a report of the use that farm operators make of twenty-seven different sources of agricultural information and the attitudes that they hold toward these sources. In addition, several concepts are described and delineated in order to precisely define the areas of concern of the study. Personal interviews were conducted with a stratified random sample of 147 farm operators in the County of Two Hills in the province of Alberta. A primary purpose was to determine any associations that might exist between seventeen selected socio-economic characteristics of the farm operator and his use of and attitude toward each source of agricultural information included in the study. The study also suggests that farmers may be grouped according to their information seeking activity. It presents a model for such groupings and identifies some of the socio-economic characteristics which may describe the persons in each group. Scaling techniques were used and correlation coefficients were calculated for all possible associations. The data were processed at the Computing Centre at the University of British Columbia. The study reports the associations existing between each socio-economic characteristic and the use of all sources of information as well as attitude toward each source of information. Each source of information was examined with respect to the use of the other sources of information. Attitudes were also examined on a similar basis. The final examination of data identifies 3 groups of respondents based on their information seeking activity. It also determines that certain socio-economic characteristics may be useful to identify these groups.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".