MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793852566 · doi:10.7710/1093-7374.1906

29Agriculture and Art Meet at the Library

2018· article· en· W2793852566 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian Vegter

Bibliographic record

VenueOLA Quarterly · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicUrban Agriculture and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe artsAgricultureLibrary scienceCapital (architecture)Political scienceSocial capitalCivic engagementRural areaPublic administrationManagementGeographyArchaeologyPoliticsEconomicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In July 2015, I was approached by Perry Stokes, Director of Baker County Library District and President of Libraries of Eastern Oregon (LEO), about an arts program that was being funded through ArtPlace America. If you didn’t know, LEO is the nation’s largest geographic library consortium, and we seek to enhance civic engagement, social capital, and the personal development of individuals. Fifteen counties and more than 50 public libraries in Oregon make up LEO, from Hood River to Ontario, Baker City to Lakeview, and just about everywhere in between, with a few exceptions in Central Oregon. The idea behind the ArtPlace America grant was to help impact conversations with local governments and national agencies about how the arts benefit rural economies.\nThe library presentations and workshops were the easiest things to tackle, but what ArtPlace was looking for from LEO was more than just arts-related workshops to be held at libraries. It wanted us to make a difference in our communities through the arts. The story that follows is an account of how we went about that larger goal with the film project titled “Harvesting Our Stories” (HOS).\nThe goal of HOS was to pair artists with agricultural producers to tell stories of how these two seemingly different occupations impact our state’s rural economy and work together for stronger and more vital communities.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOLA QuarterlySame topicUrban Agriculture and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207