MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415622490 · doi:10.15353/joci.v21i1.6400

Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers in Digital Inclusion Planning, North Carolina, 2023-2024

2025· article· W4415622490 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Elisabeth C. Reed, Joseph G. L. Lee, Catherine E. LePrevost, Jamie Bloss, Mary Roby, Leslie E. Cofie, Roger Russell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Community Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Museum and Library Services
KeywordsInclusion (mineral)Digital inclusionInvisibilityAgricultureDigital divideInclusion–exclusion principle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital exclusion is a challenge in rural North Carolina (NC), USA, where agriculture is the leading industry. Agricultural workers such as migrant and seasonal farmworkers (hereafter “farmworkers”) are disproportionately impacted by digital exclusion. As part of an effort to address digital exclusion, funders and state agencies in NC have promoted the development of county and regional plans for digital inclusion. From July 2023 to July 2024, we identified a total of 30 digital inclusion plans that covered 50 of NC’s 100 counties. To assess inclusion of farmworkers, we used a quantitative content analysis approach with two independent coders. No digital inclusion plans included farmworkers in their needs assessments or goals. Just 7% of digital inclusion plans included farmworker organizations in their planning and development, 13% of plans noted agriculture as a topic of interest in their needs assessments, and 40% noted agricultural technologies as a topic of interest. None included short or long-term goals related to agriculture. The general invisibility of farmworkers in plans contrasts with greater attention given to agriculture-related technologies. Additional attention must be given to ensure farmworkers are involved in future digital inclusion efforts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Community InformaticsSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207