Identifying Barriers and Opportunities to Alternative Livestock Production, Infrastructure, and Policy in the Kingston, Ontario Region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates barriers and opportunities to alternative livestock production, infrastructure, and policy in the Kingston, Ontario, region. This was done through a literature review and nine key stakeholder interviews. It found that alternative livestock production in the area is hampered by a lack of provincial abattoir facilities, although the existing facilities meet quality expectations. It also found that poultry is exceedingly difficult to produce in the region due to restrictive supply-managed commodity regulations and a complete lack of poultry abattoirs. Higher costs of final meat products, a need for land access, and difficulties keeping animals year-round also acted as barriers to alternative livestock production. Problems with abattoir staffing, start-up costs, equipment and facility upgrades, poorly made regulations, and seasonal demand fluctuations were identified to have a detrimental effect on the opening of new abattoirs in the area. Stakeholder perceptions of consumer preferences indicated strong demand for alternative livestock products, particularly as conventional grocery store meat prices rise. Difficulties connecting with consumers and realizing the full value of alternative livestock production need to be further explored in future 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".