MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611032666

Living near the “town that lost its water”: Explaining residents’ environmental concerns in a rural-small urban township in Ontario

2012· article· en· W2611032666 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ewa Dąbrowska, Judy Bates, Brenda Murphy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Risk perceptionPerceptionResistance (ecology)GeographySociologyObligationSocioeconomicsEnvironmental planningPolitical sciencePsychologyArchaeologyLawEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is concerned with developing culturally sensitive risk management strategies among Old Order Mennonite (OOM) and other communities, living in the Township of Woolwich and farming along a tributary of the Grand River. Based on 34 semi-structured interviews with two groups of female participants, the multiple layers of culture (community context, people’s shared core values, worldviews) were analyzed in terms of their effect on risk perception as well as risk attenuation or risk amplification processes. This research with excluded “others” articulated an exploration of modern environmental hazards in a place isolated from outsiders. The research reveals not only that epistemic difference shaped these women’s perception of risk, but also that their responses were modified through ongoing obligation to cultural and religious separation, and a centuries-old resistance to change and modernity. By focusing on the influence of culture in risk perception, this case study contributes essential insights for environmental planners and managers into developing collaborative work with conservative religious communities faced with environmental hazards.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207