From primary data to formalized decision-making: open challenges and ways forward to inform representations of farmers’ behavior in agent-based models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Model-based analyses can effectively contribute to investigating leverage points for sustainability transformations in agriculture. They allow for a systematic evaluation of policies under changing environmental, economic, or institutional conditions, and can be used to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of different policy designs. For analyzing agricultural systems, agent-based modeling is particularly useful because it can represent individual farmers—the crucial actors in land use systems—their interactions and emerging patterns at the landscape level. In order to provide policy-makers with relevant and accurate information, an adequate representation of farmers’ decision-making is essential. However, formalizing empirically observed farmers’ behavior into model rules is challenging, in particular when the observations are qualitative. With this article, we aim to guide modelers through the process of formalizing farmers’ decision-making based on empirical findings. First, we discuss which primary data collection designs are appropriate for inferring particular aspects of farmers’ behavior, focusing in particular on when a theory-driven design is helpful and when inductive approaches are needed. Second, we compile aspects that need to be covered in empirical data to best inform agent-based models. Finally, we present approaches for translating empirical findings into formalized decision rules. We underpin our discussion with model examples from the literature and our own model developed to represent farmers’ decision-making on the adoption of agri-environmental schemes in Europe. With this methodological contribution, we aim to help make agent-based models less stylized, thereby providing greater potential to support policy-makers in identifying leverage points for a sustainable transformation of agriculture.
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 | 0.062 | 0.185 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".