MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415586104 · doi:10.21083/crrf.v31i1.7330

Agritourism as a Solution to Rural Revitalization: The Case Study of North Durham Region

2023· article· W4415586104 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sarah Parish

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation · 2023
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCultural Industries and Urban Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgricultureUrbanizationLivestockRural settlementRural areaRural developmentAgricultural productivityCornerstone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The agricultural and agri-food industry has a prevalent, long-standing history as a successful cornerstone industry in Ontario. This historical prevalence stands true for the central rural township of Brock, Ontario as agriculture and livestock are a driving force in the township’s economy. However, throughout the last three decades, agricultural production in Ontario’s rural townships have been negatively impacted by vertical integration, globalization, and the intensification of land-based activities (Wicks & Merrett, 2003). This research examines the role of agritourism a viable solution to revitalizing the rural township of Brock, Ontario. This study utilized in-depth interviews with individuals from the Beaverton Agricultural Society, the Sunderland Agricultural Society, or the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. This research explores the motivations of farmers to diversify their farms through agritourism, how agritourism assists farming businesses, and strategies farmers use to implement agritourism into their current farming practices. This research is imperative for farm operators in rural Ontario and policymakers to ensure farms are able to remain economically competitive against the pressures of urbanization and changing global markets.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0180.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Rural Revitalization FoundationSame topicCultural Industries and Urban DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207