MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anabaptist Agriculture: Understanding the Success of Mennonite Farmers in Northern Ontario

2018· article· en· W3012268018 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sara Epp

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnabaptistsAgricultureAgrarian societyDiversification (marketing strategy)Economic growthSubsistence agriculturePolitical scienceGeographySocioeconomicsSociologyBusinessEconomicsMarketingArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past fifteen years, a significant movement of Anabaptist farmers, particularly Amish and Old Order Mennonites, to northern Ontario has occurred. These farmers have increased access to local food, broadened the productive spectrum of crops and improved food security for many communities. Their economic and social impacts on northern communities has been significant, as has their impact on the broader farm community. Utilizing traditional agrarian practices with limited modern technology, Anabaptist farmers have significantly broadened the agricultural landscape and challenged prevailing stereotypes of agricultural viability in the north. The success of Anabaptist farmers can be directly linked to the strong sense of community within Mennonite groups, diversified farming activities undertaken within each household and high level of acceptance from northern residents. This presentation will focus on the motivations of Anabaptist farmers who moved to northern Ontario and the diversification strategies they utilize to ensure success of their farming endeavours.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.779
Threshold uncertainty score0.821

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207