MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

KTT in a Digital Age (poster)

2017· article· en· W3011557391 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michelle Linington

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrder (exchange)BusinessAgriculturePersonality psychologySpace (punctuation)The InternetInformation technologyNorm (philosophy)MarketingAgricultural scienceComputer sciencePsychologyPolitical scienceGeographyWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the dawn of agriculture there has been a need to communicate in order to optimize production and yields. Extension and Knowledge Technology and Transfer (KTT) has seen a lot of changes over the past 100 years. None of these were as great as in the introduction of the Internet and computer technology. With this rapid change in technology, KTT workers and consultants have to adapt how information is getting to producers. Though majority of farms still prefer hard copies of publications and research, we are seeing an increase in the amount of material found online. We have also seen a shift away from demo days and on farm consultations, in order to use webinars, podcasts and social media. Farmers have a been labelled as 'slow to adapt', but this is not just a generational gap anymore. Herd size, producer personalities and delivery methods all effect how the producer wants to receive information. Though the industry is good at producing information, it is important to get it into the producers hands. Until the digital space becomes the norm for all producers there is a need to view the trends in KTT and combine traditional and new age communication methods in order to reach all farmers. As technology continues to change there will be a constant need to change how we are reaching producers while continuing with the KTT methods that have worked in the past.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207