Rural development strategies and government roles in the development of farmers’ cooperatives in China
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to address the growing income disparities between rural and urban residents in China, Chinese authorities introduced a series of rural development policies beginning in 2002 that established as a national goal a xiaokang (all around better off) society and gave top priority to the triad of agriculture, rural areas, and farmers. Farmers' cooperatives, consequently, have received substantial government support since 2002 as they are viewed as an important institution for linking small-scale producers to agro-food supply chains, and particularly value-added food chains. Yet little is understood regarding how and to what extent farmers' cooperatives have benefited members and contributed to rural development in China. Using a case study method and in-depth interviews, we evaluated three successful farmers' cooperatives in China. Following the "deepening-broadening-regrounding" typology proposed by van der Ploeg, Long, and Banks (2002), we found that the farmers' professional cooperatives can make important economic, social, and environmental contributions to rural development by adopting alternative strategies and activities. On the other hand, these cooperatives also face great challenges for further development, including limited access to land and capital, a massive loss of laborers, low market competitiveness, weak internal management, and limited government support, which explains why cooperatives are not more widespread in China. This paper offers new insights into the roles of farmers' cooperatives and government in rural development.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it