The Ambiguous Ecologies of Agri‐Alternatives: Exploring the Calculus of Social Reproduction in Rural India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This paper advances scholarship on agri‐alternatives by probing the gap between romanticised narratives of how alternative farming transitions ought to be and the actual practices farmers enact in their fields. Focusing on moments when such alternatives encounter on‐the‐ground realities, we propose ambiguous ecologies as a lens to explore the various elements shaping farmers' decisions and their complex dynamics. Centering social reproduction, we argue that transitions to agri‐alternatives are contested processes whereby farmers renegotiate productive and reproductive agrarian relations amidst uneven risks. Drawing on ethnographic insights from India, we contribute to feminist theorisation on the calculus guiding farmers' practices in two ways. First, by positing that ecologies and their materialities are key to how farmers navigate their engagement with agri‐alternatives, and second, by showing how ambiguous ecologies work as sites of agency where farmers make intimate calculations to construct liveable socio‐ecological relations against the grain of industrialised farming regimes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".