Dairy farmers' perception of barriers associated with the uptake of educational programs: A qualitative focus group study in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored Ontario dairy farmers' perceptions of educational programs and the factors that influenced their participation. Five focus groups were conducted with 20 dairy producers in southern Ontario to discuss their experiences, motivations, and barriers related to educational program participation. Through applied thematic analysis, 3 main themes were identified: (1) strategies for effective outreach and engagement, (2) perceived value of education as a driver for progress, and (3) participation in educational programs: motivators, barriers, and preferences. Effective outreach was categorized into traditional and digital communication. Although participants had individualized views on the most effective outreach strategies, it was agreed that personal invitations (in-person, text message, or phone call) most effectively encouraged participation. All participants valued education as a means of personal and business growth but emphasized that participation depended on perceived relevance, their available resources, and the delivery format. Face-to-face, small group, and interactive sessions were the preferred delivery method. However, the convenience and flexibility of an asynchronous program were not overlooked. Whereas webinars challenged participants to hold focus, written communications persisted as an advantageous option, as they allow for later reference. Podcasts were identified as useful when the topic was timely to that individual, however, most participants agreed that they would not subscribe to a podcast channel. Time availability was considered to be the primary external barrier. Additionally, participants discussed intrinsic barriers such as their perception of the value of the program and intergenerational preferences. This study reinforces the design and refinement of educational programs to enhance participation among Ontario dairy producers, thus supporting the adoption of best management practices to sustain industry success and progression.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".