MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124239275

Promoting Sustainable Agriculture: Experiences from India and Canada

2006· article· en· W3124239275 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. Puttaswamaiah, Ian D. Manns, Amita Shah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Social and Economic Development · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural Innovations and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureSustainabilityFood securitySustainable agricultureIntegrated farmingBusinessSustainable Agriculture Innovation NetworkOrganic farmingSustainable developmentEconomic growthEconomicsNatural resource economicsPolitical scienceGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agriculture growth, driven by Green Revolution, has increased the foodgrains supply, ensuring food security. The next stage, however, faces a serious challenge in terms of sustainability. While developing countries face the problem of sustainability of resource use, the challenge for developed economies is overuse of chemical inputs. These problems have increased awareness about sustainable farming and emphasised the need for moving towards it. Policies have since stressed promoting sustainable agriculture. Organic farming is a variant that is receiving special thrust under these policies. This paper examines the policy initiatives and experiences of promoting organic farming in India and Canada. In fact, the policy initiatives, if any, have emanated mainly form the viewpoint of trade concerns. There are very few studies that have gone into examining the issues of economic viability, institutional support, and market access for organic farming in India and Canada. This paper tries to fill this critical gap by examining these issues in a comparative framework. The analysis, mainly exploratory in nature, is based on the existing literature.

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 score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.827

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Social and Economic DevelopmentSame topicAgricultural Innovations and PracticesFrench-language works237,207