Food politics: perspectives on food security in Central Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food security is political. The identification of food insecurity and the development and implementation of responses to it are enveloped in layers of politics and power. This politics might not be as readily apparent in emergency situations where broad agreement on the need for a response is evident. But in the everyday governance of food it must not be forgotten that food security is a contested concept. This article offers a preliminary elucidation of this politics in the Central African context. To do so it presents findings from an analysis of publicly available information and media reports. This analysis hones in on the perspectives of differently situated stakeholders on food security imperatives in the Central African Economic and Monetary Community. To identify similarities and differences in the levels of emphasis different stakeholders place on different aspects of food security, the authors employ Olivier De Schutter's understanding of the relevant dimensions. Specific terms used in the presentation of food security information are associated with one of the three dimensions of food security advanced by De Schutter: availability, accessibility and adequacy. In light of this analytic approach, the article finds that stakeholders – including businesses, civil society groups, governments and multilateral and bilateral partners – do not necessarily articulate similar viewpoints on food security. There is simply no unified view on what should be done to advance food security in Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea or Gabon. That being said, the article does identify intriguing areas of convergence.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".