MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Municipal Agri-Food Systems Planning Capacity - Lessons Learned from Across Ontario

2025· article· en· W4408764515 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Regan Zink, Wayne Caldwell, Sara Epp

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental planningFood systemsBusinessGeographyFood securityAgricultureArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Municipal governments in Ontario play a key role in agri-food systems planning. Through land-use planning, economic development, and broader decision making, municipalities have the ability to encourage or hinder agri-food systems in their communities. While the provincial government provides a policy framework, local governments have the ability to determine how best to implement policies in their jurisdiction and have the ability to go beyond provincial mandates. This flexibility allows local governments to pursue policies, programs, and plans to support and respond to the agri-food sector. However, little is known about municipal government capacity to pursue agri-food systems planning. This presentation will discuss the findings of a research project that looks at the capacity of municipalities in Ontario related to agri-food systems planning. More specifically this research addresses the following questions: How can municipal agri-food systems planning capacity be conceptualized? What factors contribute to municipal agri-food systems planning capacity? What opportunities are available to help municipal planning departments build capacity in supporting sustainable and resilient local and regional agri-food systems? This presentation will share key findings and insight from this research, including best practices for supporting and responding to local and regional agri-food systems. This research confirms that municipal capacity to support agri-food systems planning is variable. Factors contributing to municipal capacity include: department resources and characteristics, relationships with other municipal departments, relationships with external actors, and commitment to local and regional agri-food systems. This capacity positions municipalities to facilitate agri-food systems planning processes including the use of regulatory and non-regulatory tools, and leveraging partnerships in support of agri-food systems planning.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0160.006
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207