Preliminary Results Of The Global Comparative Study On Interactions Between PGS and Social Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participatory Guarantee Systems (PGS) are viable organic verification systems complementary alternative to third party certification. This paper evaluates the interactions between PGS and social processes (e.g. seed management) and identifies how both PGS and social processes can play a trigger role to improve livelihoods of rural communities worldwide and particularly in the Peruvian Andes. It draws from in-depth interviews with 84 PGS women and men farmers from eight selected PGS initiatives in India, Philippines, South Africa, Peru, Mexico, Brazil and France, as well as 24 stakeholders involved in the development of PGS. Preliminary results show that PGS is an important platform for the development of social processes and that social processes positively impact PGS initiatives in different ways, thereby improving the sustainability of the PGS. Moreover, the results demonstrate so far that the entry into PGS offers farmers, farm families and their communities a range of benefits: improved social bonds at the local level; farmer empowerment; reduction in the costs of farming; better market access and regular sales; increased farm incomes; enhanced food security; improved management of local natural resources. \nThe final detailed research report will be available November 2013 and will include guidance on conditions under which a PGS is likely to become successful and recommendations for farmers, policy makers, researchers and the organic movement.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".