MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2542262168

Hunted, Harvested and Homegrown: The Prevalence of Self-provisioning in Rural Canada

2006· article· en· W2542262168 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sara Teitelbaum, Thomas M. Beckley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicSharing Economy and Platforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProvisioningBusinessCapital (architecture)Rural areaDemographic economicsEconomic growthSocioeconomicsEconomicsGeographyPolitical scienceComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines self-provisioning activities in rural Canada and describes their prevalence both in terms of participation and the degree to which they make material contributions to households. Self-provisioning is correlated with a number of household characteristics, such as employment, income, and length of residency. Results show that self-provisioning activities are still common in rural Canada, particularly those requiring low capital investments such as gardening and wildcrafting. However the analysis reveals weak associations between socio-economic variables and self-provisioning, providing further evidence that, in aggregate, rural households have complex motivations for participating in self-provisioning activities and that economic need is not always the main driver. The data demonstrate a low level of participation amongst the very poorest households, implying structural barriers to participation for some of these activitie

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicSharing Economy and PlatformsFrench-language works237,207