To be or to suffer? The role of cognitive dissonances in the cognitive locking of farm structural investment: an interdisciplinary perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract While concerns about farmers’ mental health have risen all over the world over the last twenty years, the impact of farm structure on farmer’s ill-being has been discussed only recently. In this article, farm investment decision-making is scrutinized in an attempt to shed light on the connection between farm structure and current farmers’ ill-being with an interdisciplinary conceptual framework. The institutionalist approach aims to integrate the anthropological concept of sacred and the psychological concept of cognitive dissonances. The interviews of 41 urban-influenced farmers in/around the Ontario’s Greenbelt, ON, Canada, and in Toulouse InterSCoT rely on the design of their investment decision-making mental models during semi-structured interviews. Results corroborate that the internalization of the norms of the current dominant agricultural model has solved cognitive dissonances and contributed to the adoption of the modern farmer identity. Nowadays, cognitive dissonances appear to be triggered by the diverging societal demands faced by farmers.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".