Disciplining land through data: The role of agricultural technologies in farmland assetisation
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
Abstract Digital agricultural technologies are promoted for increasing productivity, environmental sustainability and transparency in farming. Critical perspectives on digital agriculture are necessary to frame opportunities and challenges for agricultural communities. However, the ways in which digital agricultural technologies are contributing to land financialisation—bringing land into the global market exchange—remains unexplored. Historically, farmland has been difficult to incorporate into global markets; the complex environments of family ownership have made farms difficult to condition, discipline and control, which has deterred investors. While the outright ownership of farmland has been unappealing to investors until recently, land ownership is becoming increasingly attractive due to technological change and shifts in land management. We use a responsible research and innovation framework to examine the movements in land via digitalisation asking: Who benefits and who loses due to these processes? And what are the consequences? We bring together the agro‐food financialisation scholarship, critical data studies and responsible innovation literature to bear on an analysis of farmer interviews and content from institutional investors. Ultimately, we argue that digital technologies, through their connection with land assetisation, are fostering growing inequities with respect to land access and farmer autonomy, and thus do not presently constitute responsible innovation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it