Unpacking farmers’ multiple values in grapevine variety choice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding farmers’ values that underpin crop choices is pivotal for designing effective and adequate sustainable agricultural policies. While significant attention has been given to the agronomic, economic and socio-cultural values of smallholder farmers in the Global South, the plural values held by commercial farmers in the Global North—specifically ascribed to perennial crops—remain underexplored. Here, we adopt an emic perspective to investigate farmers’ values involved in past and anticipated choices of grapevine varieties in the Gaillac region (southwestern France). We conducted 35 interviews with farmers, and recorded 962 expressions of values for 50 cultivated grapevine varieties. Using a mixed deductive-inductive approach, we classified these values, and identified groups of farmers and varieties based on shared values using a network analysis. Farmers’ expressions of values were grouped into five domains: wine-growing (21.9%, e.g., yield), wine-making (21.8%, e.g., organoleptic properties), economics (20.7%, e.g., specific market), sense-based (23.7%, e.g., attachment to place), and external factors (11.9%, e.g., varietal regulations). Results suggest that the diversity and variation of values held by different groups of farmers and groups of varieties are key to supporting the high level of crop diversity observed at both farm and vineyard scales. Specifically, the feelings of attachment and sense of belonging to the Gaillac region are effective triggers in the maintenance of local grapevine varieties. Our research emphasizes the diverse place-based values attributed to crops, and highlights the importance of integrating sense-based values in developing biodiversity-based policies.
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".