Media, Soil Health and Climate Change Mitigation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the interplay between media and the “social side of soils” whereby climate change action implicates individual and collective capacity to adapt, participate in groups or organizations, networks, and respond to challenges and opportunities across a system. The context examined here is Canadian agriculture, and soil health initiatives in the province of Ontario. Our review of relevant literature points to a knowledge gap on the role of the media in enabling climate action in the Canadian agricultural sector with a focus on soil management practices. This study conducted a media content analysis of 100 English-language news articles published between 2022 and 2024 and conducted 31 surveys with media professionals. Approximately one-quarter of the screened news articles contained any relevant coverage of soil health-related climate change mitigation issues. Journalist surveys identified the resource constraints on soil health media coverage with a wide range of traditional and Internet-based journalism on climate change issues, motivated particularly by crisis communication and one-off “parachute reporting”. Going forward, the engagement of key stakeholders of soil health in Canada such as farmers for media and communication about climate change mitigation needs attention. Key policy structures at the federal and provincial levels can help to make this happen.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".