Working for the environment: farmer attitudes towards sustainable farming actions in rural Wales, UK
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
Recognition of land management impacts on water quality and flooding, and climate change-induced increases in storm intensity and flood risk, have led to interest in farmer provision of ecosystem services alongside food production. However, pathways for practical design and funding of agroecological interventions are less well understood. Effective design and implementation of sustainable farming initiatives have been linked to human-centred aspects including stakeholder engagement and provision of social and economic co-benefits. To obtain information on Welsh farmer perspectives on sustainable farming actions and aid development of agroecological policy and design guidance, Welsh farmer perspectives on sustainable farming were obtained through discussion, online polls, and questionnaires. Participant-identified barriers to action included incorporation of return on initial time and cost investment in long-term farm budgets, occurrence of extreme weather events, and tenanted land. Decision-making processes were rooted in community discussion to balance perceived needs of the land and farm business, with communication preferences expressed for bilingual farm advice provision and support of farmer-to-farmer knowledge transfer pathways. In addition to responding to research questions, participants identified interdependent components of economic, social, cultural, and environmental sustainability necessary to achieve positive environmental outcomes, and expressed environmentally oriented farming identities linked to environmental guardianship and caretaking. Design of tree-planting schemes was discussed as an example of this interlinkage, with positive attitudes expressed for land sharing at small spatial scales, but not at the whole-farm scale.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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