MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392815876 · doi:10.29173/jaed383

Corporate Agricultural Investment in First Nation Reserves in Canada: The Case of One Earth Farms

2017· article· en· W4392815876 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aboriginal Economic Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureEntitlement (fair division)General partnershipTimelineAgribusinessInvestment (military)BusinessWelfareEconomic growthEconomic policyPolitical scienceEconomicsFinanceMarket economyGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2009, One Earth Farms (OEF) established farming operations on First Nation reserves in Saskatchewan and Alberta, Canada. The partnership that was created with First Nations was seen by some as a new model for Canadian agriculture; one that reduced agribusiness risk while enhancing the economic and social welfare of First Nation communities. Notwithstanding the purported social and economic advantages, by 2014, OEF discontinued its contracts with its First Nation partners. The failings of OEF have since been attributed to a flawed foundation, built on a culture and people with a sense of entitlement. Yet this research has found that conflicting timelines, the misalignment of goals, and failure to deliver on what was most important to First Nations are most attributable to the failing of OEF. In this paper we present important lessons learned that if considered can result in more informed and sustained partnerships between First Nations and the private agricultural sector.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.628
Threshold uncertainty score0.652

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it