MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From Policy to Practice: Housing for International Agricultural Workers in Ontario

2024· article· en· W4408460904 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Damilola Oyewale

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Agri-Food Innovation AllianceGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsAgricultureFarm workersAgricultural economicsBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study evaluates the impact of the Ontario Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) on housing for International Agricultural Workers (IAWs). Focusing on the agri-food economy, the PPS outlines land use planning policies to guide development and promote sustainable communities. The research aims to assess the impact of the PPS in shaping living conditions and welfare for IAWs, examining unique challenges faced by them identified through extensive literature reviews. Objectives include evaluating the PPS's impact on IAW housing, gathering perspectives from local government planners on policy implementation, and identifying opportunities for improvement. A mixed-methods approach was utilized starting with document reviews of the 2020 and 2023 revised draft PPS, with thematic analysis identifying key themes. Key informant interviews with planners also provided qualitative insights which were recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed using NVivo. The study contributes valuable insights for policymakers and planners, informing improvements in living conditions and the overall well-being of IAWs for the overall agri-food economy of Ontario.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207