Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The science of anthropogenic global warming is well established. Burning 100 M barrels of oil equivalent does do harm, yet in the USA Mid-West as well as in Alberta. 90% of farmers sampled either did not believe in AGW or thought it is a natural process. Purpose: To examine various change theories and their suitability to help mitigate global warming on Western Canadian grain farms Methods/ Findings: Analysis of the exploratory in-depth qualitative narrative-based research work conducted during my PhD thesis has resulted in development of Rourke’s General Farm Practice Change Theory, a Net Positive farm Framework and a Global warming Mitigation credit framework. Practical Implications: In this paper I discuss and contrast the development of Rourke's General Farm Practice Change Theory as a Pull Change Theory rather than the more common Push approaches. It refers to lessons learnt from the Manitoba -North Dakota Zero Tillage Farmers Association ,1978-2014.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it