Social-Ecological Systems Analysis and Perceptions of Change in Agriculture, Food and Farm Systems in Southern Alberta and Yukon Territory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social-ecological change such as climate change, market volatility or policy reforms are too often discussed at global and national scales; however, it is at local and regional scales that individuals and communities experience and respond to these changes. This is perhaps most evident in agriculture, food and farm systems, where change is a constant for farmers and ranchers. In this dissertation I explore the perceptions and experiences of change from the perspective of farmers, ranchers, local food producers and community residents using socialecological systems analysis, as a first approximation and effort at pattern recognition in Southern Alberta’s farm and ranch community, and in Yukon Territory. The research objective being to understand how individuals respond to change, identifying supports and barriers that exist for responding to change, and how to create more sustainable and resilient agriculture, food and farm systems. In both study areas, online surveys were used to engage farmers and ranchers, and in Yukon Territory, surveys were also distributed to residents as this study was exploring specific perspectives of local food consumption and the role of hydroponics. A soft-systems approach was taken in each study to understand the social-ecological conditions, relationships, and dimensions that effect responding to change, and the visions for the future. Each study area had unique perspectives and experiences that were a product of their social-ecological context, for example, in Southern Alberta when discussing climate, precipitation was prime concern, while in Yukon Territory, it was temperature. Despite these differences driven by place-based context, there were key similarities. In both areas, financial limitations were the prime barrier for one’s ability to respond to changes of any variety. Furthermore, despite the major differences in scale of agricultural operations in both regions, participants in both areas believed that agriculture needs to produce within their own social-ecological conditions, and there is a need for more diverse and resilient local and regional food systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".