MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973151426 · doi:10.1353/jowh.2019.0030

Farming Women and the State in North America

2019· article· en· W2973151426 on OpenAlex
Cherisse Jones‐Branch

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of women's history · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Identity and History
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgrarian societyAgricultureState (computer science)IdeologyColonialismNarrativeSociologyPolitical scienceGeographyLawArchaeologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Farming Women and the State in North America Cherisse Jones-Branch (bio) Nancy K. Berlage. Farmers Helping Farmers: The Rise of the Farm and Home Bureaus, 1914–1935. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2016. 308 pp.; ISBN 978-0-8071-6331-3 (cl). Sarah Carter. Imperial Plots: Women, Land, and the Spadework of British Colonialism on the Canadian Prairies. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press, 2016. xxii + 455 pp.; ill. ISBN 978-0-88755-818-4 (pb). Farming women in North America have rarely been given full consideration in all their complexity in scholarly literature. Narratives have most often chronicled and identified men as farmers, landowners, and members of farming organizations. The works reviewed in this essay probe those historical silences and speak to women's experiences as agriculturalists, landowners, and active, engaged members of farm-oriented organizations to reveal the impact of gender, identity, and ideology on the formation of agrarian life. Drawing from cartoons, films, photographs, and personal correspondence, Nancy K. Berlage's 2016 work Farmers Helping Farmers adeptly weaves an exploration of local farm and home bureau organizations into a sociopolitical study of the American Farm Bureau Federation. As organizations that worked closely with university-trained home and farm demonstration agents employed by the Cooperative Extension Services of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), farm bureaus circulated knowledge to rural communities informed by such new disciplines as agricultural economics, rural sociology, home economics, veterinary medicine, child science, and public health. Berlage productively complicates this narrative by considering women's roles in farm and home bureaus as spaces where they too could discuss farming concerns, child welfare, personal health, and gender ideals and expectations. Beyond this, farming women recognized that due to labor saving technological innovations, their roles in the home "reduced them to a position of relative powerless domesticity" (11). Berlage reclaims this narrative and discusses the ways in which women accessed and claimed space within farm bureaus to assert their honed form of authority. Farming women deeply entrenched themselves in farm bureau culture as architects of its national and local work. This astute assessment is also found in Jenny Barker Devine's 2013 study, On Behalf of the Family Farm. [End Page 124] Both Berlage and Barker Devine explicate how farm women, as members of farm and home bureaus, engaged in "associationalist politics," which allowed them to manipulate understandings of maternalism and domesticity as they deemed necessary to empower themselves. According to Berlage, women asserted their identities as wives, mothers, and farmers through the farm bureau. Gender, science, and farm work were not mutually exclusive. Rather, women co-opted agricultural and scientific language, heretofore meant for men, and reconstructed it in ways that shaped farm bureaus' agendas and, hence, their own. In chapters four and five, Berlage focuses on female-centered "home bureaus," which were "similar to and had a complex relationship with farm bureaus" (123). Within these organizations, women combined science with the "Home Bureau Creed," thereby extending and legitimizing their reach into local communities. By doing so, they employed a strategy that was both "separatist and integrationist" (124). Their efforts were further informed by the federal government's passage of the 1914 Smith-Lever Act, which created the cooperative agricultural extension service, headquartered at agricultural colleges, and placed home demonstration agents, trained in the domestic sciences, in rural communities. The federal government's unfortunate disregard for rural women, subcategorizing them within the agricultural extension service, led to the formation of home bureaus. Home bureaus, however, grew along with the rise of home economies. Some land-grant colleges began to offer "domestic economy courses" and some institutions, like Cornell University, hired women to organize and teach them (128–29). They were particularly concerned about utilizing the professionalization of home economics to preserve farm families and stem the tide of outmigration to urban areas. The Smith-Lever Act's passage granted home economics credibility and connected home economy professionals to farm bureau women. Both, as Berlage astutely argues, were "locked into a system led by male extension agents and administrators" (130). Some bureau women, however, cleverly navigated gendered boundaries and organized independently. New York Home Bureau Federation leaders, for instance, carefully mediated concerns about...

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · 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