Land to the Tiller: The Sustainability of Family Farms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper on family farms is in the form of an historical review complemented by current and future perspectives from North America, China, Brazil and Europe. The literature review demonstrates the multiple discourses, concepts and methodologies which underpin contemporary understandings of the family farm. The authors argue that family-based farming units are ubiquitous in most agricultural systems and take on many different forms and functions, conditioned by the structure of agriculture in different locations and political systems. Our review accepts this diversity and seeks to identify some key elements that inform our understanding of the sustainability of family farming, now and in the future. The term ‘family’ is the differentiating variable and behooves a sociological approach. However, economists can view the family farm as an economic unit, a business and even a firm. Geographers see family farms consigned to the margins of good land areas, and political scientists have seen family farms as a class. What emerges is a semantic enigma. As an imaginary term, ‘family farming’ is useful as a positive, universally valued ideal; as a definable entity on the ground, however, it is difficult to classify and measure for comparative policy and research purposes. This ambiguity is utilized by governments to manage the increasing capitalization of farm units while projecting the image of wholesome production of food. The case studies demonstrate the diversity of ways in which family farming ideologies are being mobilized in contemporary agrarian change processes. The notion of ‘land to the tiller’ is resonant with historic injustices in Scotland and Brazil, where family-based agriculture is understood as the ‘natural’ order of agricultural production and actively supported as an historic ideal. In contrast, in the Chinese context, ‘land to the tiller’ is a political means of increasing capital penetration and economic sustainability. Evidence from China, Brazil and Scotland demonstrates the active role of governments, coupled with symbolic ideologies of farming, which suggest that the longevity (i.e., sustainability) of family farming will continue.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".