Engaging Farmers Through Facebook : the Use and Potential of Web 2.0 Tools in Agricultural Planning Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Web 2.0 represents a new way to communicate, collect data and access all types of data and information online. It places full value in the 'wisdom of the crowd', recognizing the real-time contributions and knowledge individual users of the Web can contribute. To contrast this, formal planning is incremental and methodological. The actualized and potential application of emerging Web 2.0 tools and technologies in the food and agricultural planning context in southern Ontario forms the basis for this major research paper. Through qualitative analysis of several online initiatives, I seek to determine how and where user-generated data and information (collected and distributed by agricultural producers and consumers and not just by planners, other government officials) can fit into the formal planning process through new ways of collaboration and online engagement. Ultimately, much of the leadership around Web 2.0 comes from informal networks or non-governmental organizations organizing around food and agricultural production. Planners working in formal institutional settings must continue to understand the niche that these tools can play in their own engagement efforts and determine how best to use the vast wealth of average citizens' food and agricultural knowledge increasingly available online.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".