The Tilapia Agrifood-Chain from a Sociopoietic Territorial Approach: A Theoretical Proposal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the state of Veracruz, Mexico, the performance of the Tilapia (Oreochromis spp.) production system in the domestic market has been declining. Recent production results are lower than those presented in 1999, revealing that the production model adopted and used since 2001 is ineffective as a development strategy. The reason for the failure is that the model considers the technological production process as the central element of aquacultural competitiveness, without considering that production practices, marketing and consumption of goods are performed by individuals who decide and control their actions and are motivated by the values shared with their social group. This interpretation reveals the need for a new complementary conceptual framework, considering the system of production and consumption as a social self-referencing system. Thus, in this article, a model of an agricultural food-chain with a sociopoietic territorial focus on the development of the aquaculture subsector is outlined. The model is based on constructs having the following theoretical dichotomies: territorial agrifood, neo-institutional business, sociopoiesis and individual motivation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".