MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095073026

The Moral Ecology of Organics

2015· article· en· W7095073026 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmbodied cognitionRelevance (law)AgricultureThreatened speciesDomesticationOrganic farmingAnimal rightsLivestock
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of the relationship between humans and the environments in which they live has long been central to anthropological inquiry. However, it has taken on increasing relevance as the survival of human societies is threatened by the destruction of the non-human world. This raises a number of ethical issues that are being explored increasingly particularly under the name of bioethics. However, the literature on agricultural ethics is mostly limited to the debate over livestock practices, and alternative agriculture is only beginning to receive attention from social scientists interested in ethical issues. Yet values often lie behind the choice to adopt non-conventional approaches to farming. This research focuses on knowledge, practice and values among organic farmers in Québec. It uses qualitative research methods (including about 40 in-depth face-to-face interviews) with organic farmers from four large regions in Québec to develop an anthropological approach to organic agriculture as both social movement and embodied practice. In this paper I will explore the ethics of responsibility – for various life forms, for wild and domesticated “nature, ” and for human communities – embodied by organic

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0170.099
Scholarly communication0.0100.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.113 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies→French-language works237,207→