Marketing strategies and profile of family farming cooperatives in the Center-West and South of Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the aims of cooperatives is to organize production and marketing in order to find new markets and get away from dependence on intermediaries. They are therefore looking for strategies that will allow them to survive, develop and be autonomous in the running and advancement of their enterprises. With this in mind, the general aim of this study was to analyze the marketing and autonomy strategies of family farming cooperatives in the Central West and South regions of Brazil. Managers and members of six agricultural cooperatives were interviewed, one in Rio Grande do Sul, two in Paraná and three in Goiás, all of which are made up of family farmers and are involved in government institutional marketing programs. The results show that two cooperatives in Goiás and the one in Rio Grande do Sul are managed with the effective participation of their members. The cooperatives in Paraná and one in Goiás have a more corporate management model, with more decision-making by the organization's management. Access to credit presents difficulties in terms of guarantees and excessive bureaucracy, highlighting the organizations' weaknesses. Raising non-reimbursable funds was seen as the main source of investment. The organizations are dependent on institutional programs for fresh products. It can be concluded that there is a notorious lack of autonomy in family farming cooperatives, with significant dependence on public purchases via institutional programs, difficulties in operating in other markets and dependence on non-reimbursable resources for investments. Weaknesses in the quantity and quality of production were pointed out as the main challenge facing cooperatives, leading us to conclude that this is just the tip of a complex scenario of weaknesses in management and technical assistance and rural extension.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".