MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117253060 · doi:10.21083/caree.v1i1.8935

Encouraging Knowledge Diffusion through the Peer Group Learning Model

2025· article· W7117253060 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natasha Wilkie, Adriane Catherine Good, Alexis DeCorby, Kathy Larson, Fonda Froats

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Agri-food & Rural Advisory Extension and Education Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRural development and sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeer groupTest (biology)Peer productionPeer-to-peerProduction (economics)Peer feedbackPeer educationCommunity of practiceEarly adopterKnowledge sharing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Producers learn from each other by sharing their experiences with implementing management practices – business, personnel, production - on their farms, while positively contributing to mental health and well-being (Betker and Lemoine, 2022; Farm Management Canada, 2012). The purpose of this project was to pilot peer learning groups to test their effectiveness as an alternative way to reach producers and encourage the involvement of early adopters in knowledge diffusion. Peer groups, comprised of Saskatchewan livestock producers, were formed to establish a peer-to-peer connection. Each peer group consisted of 5-8 operations, varying in their production model and location in the province. Meetings were organized throughout the year, being mainly virtual, with an option of one or two in-person meetings for each group. WhatsApp chats were created to encourage discussion outside of the meetings. Groups identified learning priorities for meetings based on mutual interests. Meetings were 90 minutes long and consisted of upcoming event notifications, guest speakers, and facilitated discussion. E-mails emphasizing key messages and relevant information were shared after every meeting. The peer group model is being expanded, with plans to create groups targeted to certain demographics, starting with young producers. An average of 60% of peer group members consistently attended their group’s meetings. Two-thirds of participants in the first iteration of peer groups had never previously participated in a peer group, and all were somewhat or very likely to recommend peer group participation to a friend. These groups amplified extension messaging and provided a sense of community among the members. Utilizing technology to form peer groups can increase knowledge diffusion by bringing early adopters from across the province together to share their experiences. This amplifies extension of practices and increases the speed of adoption on a larger scale.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Agri-food & Rural Advisory Extension and Education JournalSame topicRural development and sustainabilityFrench-language works237,207