MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W27355366 · doi:10.4148/1051-0834.1281

Bridging Borders: Organizing Short-Term Agricultural Communication Exchange Programs

2006· article· en· W27355366 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Emily Rhoades, Roslynn Brain, Ricky Telg, Tracy Irani, Owen J. Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Communications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureBridging (networking)Study abroadLibrary scienceCultural exchangeGraduate studentsAgricultural experiment stationPolitical scienceGeographySociologyMedical educationPedagogyComputer scienceMedicineArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the efforts of the University of Florida (located in Gainesville, Florida) and the University of Guelph (located in Ontario, Canada, near Toronto) to jointly develop a unique pilot exchange program for undergraduate and graduate agricultural communication students. The program was designed to encourage students to think critically about agriculture, agricultural communications, and culture in each other's countries. During this exchange, nine University of Guelph students traveled to Florida for one week during their winter breaks and six University of Florida students traveled to Canada during their spring breaks. The exchanges took place in back-to-back weeks. Students met with university administrators and agriculture industry representatives, toured agricultural facilities, and visited cultural locations. This paper details the planning process that culminated in the two-week program, provides students' comments about what they learned during the study-abroad experience, and makes recommendations to faculty interested in organizing similar study-abroad programs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied CommunicationsSame topicDiverse Educational Innovations StudiesFrench-language works237,207