Academic freedom as it relates to university-based agricultural research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigation of academic freedom as praxis within university-based agriculture research is warranted as industry presence increases within academia. Two contrasting agriculture research paradigms viz., biotechnology and organic serve as the lens of the research. The overall goal is to better understand academic freedom and agriculture research through four objectives: 1) describe Canadian university agriculture research and its evolution; 2) explore the degree to which this evolution reflects concomitant changes in funding relationships with government and industry; 3) contrast supports and barriers faced by faculty members; and 4) how these changes might continue to evolve in the future. Convergent parallel mixed methods were utilized. Results indicate a funding bias towards biotechnology research, limited amounts of organic research, and that academic freedom may be under utilized. The implications of increased reliance on external funding for university research are benefits to private interests while concomitantly harming academic freedom and public good research.
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 | 0.030 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".