Food Security, Food Sovereignty, and Bowhead Whale Hunts among the Iñupiat in Utqiaġvik, Alaska, USA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Kishigami 94 economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life' (FAO 2006).Food security comprises four challenges.The first is food availability, which concerns whether there is enough food of appropriate quality.The second is food access, which concerns whether people are free of legal, political, economic, or social impediments to attaining nutritious food.The third is utilization, which concerns whether people can practically and effectively consume safe and nourishing food.The fourth is societal stability, which is necessary to ensure sufficient food availability, food access, and food utilisation.Attaining food security is a common goal of national governments and international organizations such as the United Nations.The phrase "food sovereignty" was coined by La Va Campesina, founded in 1993 as 'an international movement bringing together millions of peasants, small-and mediumsize farmers, landless people, rural women and youth, Indigenous people, migrants and agricultural workers from around the world' (La Va Campesina 2020).The well-known international NGO insists that the sovereignty of food production and distribution should belong to the people and communities that produce food locally.At the Nylni Forum 2007 in Slingu, Mali, La Va Campesina was among those who produced the Nylni Declaration, which included the six pillars that support food sovereignty: (1) Focuses on food for people; (2) Values food providers; (3) Localizes food systems; (4) Puts control locally; (5) Builds knowledge and skills; and (6) Works with nature (Food Secure Canada 2012).Over time, the idea of food sovereignty has been acknowledged internationally as a foundation for people to produce and consume food locally.Although these concepts entail mutually overlapping ideas, food security differs from food sovereignty.Whereas food sovereignty concerns specific localities, food security concerns national or global communities.Shiaki Kondo (2018: 5) observed that "a difference in perspectives (exists) that food security tends to emphasize food production and distribution at the global level whereas food sovereignty respects decision making about food production at the local level".According to Gordillo and Mndez (2013), the concepts have a commonality in that they emphasize food production and the necessity to produce it to meet future demands.Their main issue is how to access food.They value nutritional quality and the necessity for the social protection of food production when temporary food crises occur.However, the two concepts differ greatly on the following points.The first difference is that food security only slightly addresses issues of who produces the food (e.g. if a multinational company with political and economic power produces it), to the degree that the food is secured; food sovereignty addresses power differences and who produces the food.The second difference relates to how the food is produced.Although food security does not emphasize the mode of food production, food sovereignty emphasizes how food is secured in small-scale units such as through non-industrial small-scale agriculture.Although many studies have examined food security or food sovereignty for people residing in developing countries, there have been few studies on food security and food sovereignty among many Indigenous people and communities around the globe.However, since the beginning of the 21st century, several studies of Indigenous North Americans
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».