Switching the Telescope Lens: A Sociomaterial Perspective of Sustainable Agricultural (Proto)Practices Transfer in an Agrifood Supply Chain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study investigates the implementation and transfer of sustainable agricultural practices (SUSAPs) across a multitier agrifood supply chain (SC) using Brazilian poultry farming as the empirical context. We conduct an interpretive case study of buyer–supplier–subsupplier triads, including those certified under Global Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) and noncertified counterparts, using interviews, observations, and secondary data. Adopting a sociomaterial perspective, we investigate how SUSAPs' components—meanings, materials, and competencies—are embedded within specific SC tiers and transferred across the triad. A zoom‐in analysis reveals that only animal welfare is a fully adopted practice, whereas waste management, working conditions, and biosecurity remain in development as protopractices. A zoom‐out analysis of SUSAPs' components shows limited buyer influence across the triad, while first‐tier suppliers facilitate SUSAP transfer. We advance theory by demonstrating how a sociomaterial perspective explains the degree of SUSAPs' implementation and transfer, and introducing the boomerang effect , illustrating how first‐tier suppliers enable SUSAP implementation among certified and noncertified subsuppliers to ensure safer and more sustainable products. These insights help managers transfer SUSAPs into their SCs by leveraging first‐tier suppliers as boundary spanners.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".