MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Before the Bulldozer Hits the Ground: Measuring Farmland Loss in Ontario

2017· article· en· W3011574776 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sara Epp and James Newlands

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Economics and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureSustainabilityLand useEnvironmental planningAgricultural landEnvironmental resource managementBusinessPsychological resilienceData collectionPlan (archaeology)Order (exchange)Natural resource economicsGeographyAgricultural economicsEnvironmental scienceCivil engineeringEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rural Ontario is in a constant state of change, as economic, environmental and political pressures impact the viability and resilience of many rural communities. Agricultural areas, in particular, are often negatively impacted by such changes, as this land may be more valuable for development purposes. Farmland is often redesignated to residential, commercial or aggregate land uses, among others, significantly impacting the viability of the agricultural industry. The future sustainability of agriculture in Ontario is dependent upon a stable land base and precise understanding of the availability of farmland. To date, accurate data regarding the amount of farmland being converted to non-farm land uses is not available as existing methods have significant limitations regarding data accuracy, consistency and timing. This research seeks to evaluate the current state of Ontario's farmland in terms of the land available and policies regarding land conservation. In order to ensure that farmland is available, it is necessary to measure the existing land base and determine the quantity of land being lost to development. This study has developed a new methodology for measuring the amount of farmland converted to non-farm land uses through official plan amendments and has been applied to nine regions and counties in southern Ontario. This presentation and poster will detail this new methodology and provide an analysis of the data collected to date. Recommendations regarding policy development, challenges associated with data collection and future research will also be presented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicAgricultural Economics and PolicyFrench-language works237,207