Canada – Ploughing new ground: a feminist interpretation of youth farm internships in Ontario,
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the end four semi-structured interviews lasting about two hours were conducted with farmers and their interns in the summer of 2014 (see Table 16.1). An ethics review of the project was conducted and approved by the Office of Research Ethics at the author’s university (certificate no. e2014-178). One of the interviewees refused to be tape-recorded; all of the other interviews were taped and transcribed. The farmers, all of whom were women, were selected based on their willingness to engage interns and young people on their farms; questions were asked about their reasons for practicing ecologically oriented farming, why they use interns and what they perceived to be most important in training their interns. This study did not begin with the question of why women predominate in this type of farming or why women participate in youth agricultural skills training, rather, the gender dimension emerged in the course of doing the research. Three interns were also interviewed; however, space does not allow for detailed discussion of these findings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".