Looking through a responsible innovation lens at uneven engagements with digital farming
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.867
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.531
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
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.
The record
- Venue
- NJAS - Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences
- Topic
- Innovation and Socioeconomic Development
- Field
- Business, Management and Accounting
- Canadian institutions
- University of Ottawa
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
- Keywords
- Lens (geology)Through-the-lens meteringAgricultureBusinessGeographyOpticsPhysics
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes