Science and Agribusiness in the History of Pig Factory Farming in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article explores some of the connections between science and agribusiness in the history of pig factory farming in Ontario, Canada, between the 1950s and the present. The factory farm model of pig production submits animals to a very artificial way of life, which would not be possible without the inputs of scientific and technological innovations of the 20th century. Topics discussed include the use of antibiotics, swine nutrition, feed conversion (in)efficiency, and pork promotion and consumption. The primary sources utilized are a trade magazine, a census of agriculture, and other government and industry publications. The article sheds light on how notions such as “progress”, “improvement”, “modern” or “efficiency”, frequently used by scientists when referring to results of pig production, are restricted to narrow or internal considerations of the industry that, in turn, can be challenged by broader analysis of aspects (social, economic, environmental) of the food system. Scientists have not just produced scientific knowledge but in some cases have also promoted ideologies about animals and the food system. These ideologies of “progress”, “improvement”, “modern” or “efficiency”, as in the context of pig production in Ontario, only make sense if we understand the particular historical moment in the analysis, which since the 1950s has markedly been one of strong agribusiness interventionism.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".