MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783329378 · doi:10.7202/1042713ar

Qui est agriculteur au Québec ? Ambiguïté des institutions et enjeux pour le développement rural

2017· article· fr· W2783329378 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Patrick Mundler, Fernande Ouellet

Bibliographic record

VenueCahiers de géographie du Québec · 2017
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La question de savoir qui est ou n’est pas agriculteur est souvent traitée comme une évidence. Au Québec, la Loi sur les producteurs agricoles sert de référence pour définir ce qu’est un agriculteur. Comme dans de nombreux pays, la définition retenue est large et inclusive. Tous les agriculteurs sont-ils pour autant égaux devant les politiques agricoles ? En analysant les définitions formelles retenues par les organisations en relation avec l’agriculture, nous montrons que la large définition retenue par la Loi est pour partie compensée par des critères internes aux organisations. Nous constatons de grandes différences entre les types de production, que ce soit pour bénéficier des programmes d’assurance récolte et d’assurance revenu ou pour bénéficier des différentes formes d’aide à l’établissement en agriculture, ce qui témoigne de la prégnance d’une représentation de l’agriculteur vivant principalement de ses activités agricoles. Nous montrons enfin que, au-delà des définitions, les enjeux en termes de légitimité des politiques agricoles, d’occupation du territoire et de renouvellement de la population agricole sont bien réels.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0120.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCahiers de géographie du QuébecSame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207