Exploring the role of a social carrier in advancing agroecology and territorial autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The practice of agroecology has been promoted as a promising pathway to improve environmental and human well-being. Previous research has shown that farm size is often related to factors that can help or hinder agroecological practice use, but context is key. Here, we examine the relationship between farm size and the use of agroecological practices by assessing 596 management plans for farms associated with the Brazilian participatory agroecology network Rede Ecovida. In contrast to other studies, we found that the probability of using agroecological practices generally did not differ by farm size. We draw on interviews with agroecological actors to contextualize these findings and characterize the relationship between farm size and agroecology, both as a set of practices and a social movement. We suggest that, in this case, the lack of a relationship between farm size and agroecological practices might be explained by Rede Ecovida’s role as a “social carrier” that advances agroecological principles and practices in the pursuit of territorial, or actual, autonomy. This study highlights the importance of the socio-organizational dimensions of agroecological transitions and suggests that increased support should be directed to social networks and participatory certification models to encourage scaling agroecology across diverse farm types and sizes.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".