MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W379677597 · doi:10.5539/sar.v5n1p86

Entrepreneurship on the Farm: Kentucky Grower Perceptions of Benefits and Barriers

2016· article· en· W379677597 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Amy Camenisch, Sandra Bastin, Amanda Hege

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainable Agriculture Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversification (marketing strategy)BusinessMarketingProduct (mathematics)Added valueMarket penetrationLegislationValue addedPopularityValue (mathematics)Order (exchange)Agricultural scienceEconomicsFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The popularity of buying local and the resurgence of farmers markets has increased the need for farmer product diversification. In Kentucky, legislation was passed to allow farmers to produce value-added horticulture products from their homes. Following specific food-safe guidelines, homebased processors (HBP) and microprocessors (HBM) could sell pre-determined value-added products at their local farmers markets. This study administered an online survey to HBP and HBM participants in order to achieve the following objectives: 1) Determine the perceived success of farmer produced value-added food products, 2) Identify which support programs farmers are aware of or use, 3) Discover the primary perceived barriers to developing value-added food products, and 4) Ascertain what factors influence the development of a value-added food product business. Participants felt their value-added products were successful but many felt they struggled to bring their products to market. The primary barriers to developing value-added products were lack of time, funding, and legal knowledge. The primary barriers to using pre-existing program resources were not having enough time, being unaware of the services offered, and programs being held in locations too far away from their farm. The information gathered by this study can be used to determine the addressable farmer needs in product diversification. It can also assist programs in making their services more available and applicable to farm entrepreneurs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainable Agriculture ResearchSame topicOrganic Food and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207