Can We Be More Collaborative? Top-Down Policies and Urban–Rural Divides in the Ecological Agriculture Sector in Nanjing, China
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Embeddedness has long been used to study collaborations and tensions between food initiatives, but less attention has been paid to this topic in both the vertical and formal contexts of governmental systems and the horizontal and vernacular contexts of local culture. Such interrogations are essential for understanding the challenges for advancing food initiatives. This study uses the case of ecological agriculture in Nanjing, China to investigate the vertical embeddedness shaped by policy networks and horizontal embeddedness carved into local social configurations. We conclude that strong government supports facilitated large-scale modern ecological agriculture enterprises, at the expense of small-scale ecological farms. Furthermore, the tensions between new farmers and local farmers attributed to the broad urban-rural divide also impede recently established ecological farm operations. Strategies are needed to address these social divides between ecological farms in order for them to be collaborative in China and in other similar social-political settings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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