Is environmental stewardship in conflict with farm financial management?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Agriculture, of all human activities, has arguably the most significant impact, both negative and positive, on the environment. For farmers, financial cost and benefit is the most important consideration in environmental decision-making. This study explored the environmental stewardship of farmer participants of the Alternative Land Use Services [ALUS] program in Norfolk County, Ontario. ALUS provides opportunities for farmers to reduce their environmental footprint by providing financial incentives and assistance to reserve agricultural land from production. Utilizing qualitative descriptive methods, this study conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews to determine the environmental stewardship perspectives on of these farmers, and how these perspectives might have been enhanced through involvement in ALUS. The study found that the participants have significant feelings of responsibility towards the environment and struggle to balance the needs of the environment when in conflict with the needs of the farm or the family. Participation in organizations such as ALUS provides the space for reflection with the purpose of maximizing opportunities to enhance environmental stewardship while minimizing resulting financial management challenges.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".