Redes alimentares alternativas e potencialidade ao desenvolvimento do capital social
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From sustainability and social justice perspectives, organic food producers have found a bifurcation between conventional growth and maintenance of family farms. The latter are driven to alternative food networks that embrace a broad variety of formats. This article questions how these formats can favor social capital development. Based on a systematic review, 45 articles sustain the existence of a taxonomy of five different types of networks: own production; basket schemes; direct sales; community supported agriculture and; solidarity purchase groups. The reflection regarding expected density and links in each type of network, based on the observed examples, indicate greater potential in groups formed by consumers, followed by those started by producers, basket schemes and, finally, production for self-consumption. This can be a significant contribution to policies aimed to boost responsible consumption and family farm development.SOUZA, Ronaldo Tavares de; CALDAS, Eduardo de Lima. Redes alimentares alternativas e potencialidade ao desenvolvimento do capital social. Estudos Sociedade e Agricultura, jun. 2018, v. 26, n. 2, p. 426-446, ISSN 2526-7752.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".