Exploring the impacts of Canadian agrihoods as a form of development-supported agriculture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of agrihoods is a growing trend in the real-estate and development market and yet little is known about their efficacy at providing the variety of benefits they are said to deliver. This presentation will provide an overview of commonly cited benefits of agrihoods, while reflecting on the perception that they are a form of development-supported agriculture. An overview of the project will break down key definitions used to conceptualize agrihoods as a mechanism to support the preservation of farmland and explore the gaps in knowledge that contribute to the dangers of assuming their beneficial impacts. The presentation will take you through the purpose of exploring Canadian agrihoods and their impacts on the agricultural system, surrounding communities and their residents. You will be guided through the anticipated research results that might infer how agrihoods can be used as a tool for developing healthier, happier, and more resilient communities. This study aims to provide policy makers, municipalities, planners and farmers valuable insight and knowledge needed for the likely increase in agrihood development proposals, considerations for edge-planning, and alternative opportunities for preserving farmland.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".