MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Enabling Responsible AI-Driven Agri-Food Innovation in Ontario: Challenges and Opportunities

2025· article· en· W4408764426 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Uduak Ita Edet, Ataharul Chowdhury

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSmart Agriculture and AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adopting artificial intelligence (AI) in Ontario’s agri-food sector can enhance productivity and boost competitiveness, market opportunities, and sector strength. However, without responsible innovation that addresses societal concerns, the sector might face issues like adoption indifference, job displacement, inequality, and ethical dilemmas. AI adoption varies by sector and value chain, necessitating different skills for workers based on the AI technologies implemented. Responsible innovative technologies in agriculture have the potential to generate jobs that attract multiple skills. Initiatives focusing on skill development in digital farming technologies can increase the employability of individuals from various backgrounds and promote inclusivity in the agricultural sector. This research employs a mixed-methods approach to explore key factors influencing AI adoption in Ontario’s horticultural and livestock sectors, associated challenges and opportunities, and essential skills and knowledge for agri-food workers. The goal is to understand how AI can responsibly increase the competitiveness and growth of Ontario’s agri-food sector. It will provide opportunities for the improved support of agri-food workers, enhanced public policy, and strategic investments in programs that can empower a broader range of skills needed to contribute to the industry's technological transformation. Preliminary findings highlight key competencies for AI adoption, associated challenges, and potential benefits.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicSmart Agriculture and AIFrench-language works237,207