New Beginnings: Exploring Agricultural Communications Curriculum Development in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While agricultural communications programs are staples in American higher education, no comparable program exists in any Canadian institution. As North American nations, Canadian and American agriculture face similar challenges such as increasingly skeptical public opinion and decreasing agricultural literacy. This study focuses on the flagship agricultural institution in Canada as a potential base for a new agricultural communications program and highlights the opinions of two key stakeholders, agricultural students at the institution, and agricultural industry professionals in Ontario. Following a curriculum development framework by Wolf (2007), stakeholders detailed suggested program formatting, ideal core curriculum content, traits of the ideal graduate, and desired opportunities and experiences provided by such a program. Results found that stakeholders upheld the program teaching a variety of communication skills, social skills, and providing networking and co-op opportunities. Participants upheld the value of the program, noting that a major and particularly a minor option are ideal to introduce the program to as many students as possible, even those outside of agriculture. This study serves as an important step for future Canadian or North American curriculum development initiatives and seeks to fill the literature gap for agricultural communications curriculum development outside of the United States.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".