Looking through a responsible innovation lens at uneven engagements with digital farming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article extends social science research on big data and data platforms through a focus on agriculture, which has received relatively less attention than other sectors like health. In this paper, I use a responsible innovation framework to move attention to the social and ethical dimensions of big data “upstream,” to decision-making in the very selection of agricultural data and the building of its infrastructures. I draw on original empirical material from qualitative interviews with North American designers and engineers to make visible and analyze the normative aspects of their technical decisions. Social actors shaping innovation hold a narrow set of values about good farming and good technology and their data selection choices privilege large-scale and commodity crop farmers by focusing on agronomic crop data and data mapping unusable to organic growers. Enabling engagement among a wide variety of food system actors, not just already powerful ones, and attending to a greater diversity of values would be essential to underpin a responsible digital agricultural transition.
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 | 0.027 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".