MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2313807558 · doi:10.14288/1.0087325

Homesite severance policy: its evolution and impact on the agricultural land base of British Columbia

2009· article· en· W2313807558 on OpenAlexaffabout
John Martin Collins

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeveranceAgricultureBase (topology)Agricultural economicsNatural resource economicsEconomicsGeographyArchaeologyLabour economics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Homesite Severance Policy of British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Commission permits the subdivision of the farmer’s home from the farm property. Its purpose is to balance the protection of the agricultural resource with fair treatment for retiring farmers. This study documents the land use implications of the policy as well as its development, charting its origins and changes over the decades. Critics of the policy have noted two major problems. Urban sized lots have been scattered throughout the agricultural community, increasing the possibility of urban - rural conflicts (over the noises and smells of farming). Scarce arable land has also been lost, through construction (of the home or barns), on the remnant property. To determine if the agricultural resource has been compromised by the policy the frequency, location and actual area taken by homesite severance will be reviewed. In addition the study will explore the rationale and results of the two reviews of the policy. Suggestions will be offered (as they emerge from the findings and discussion) to alleviate the negative effects of the policy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.155
Teacher spread0.149 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicOrganic Food and Agriculture→French-language works237,207→