FS - From protest to policy: The challenges of institutionalizing food sovereignty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the failure of current approaches to alleviate the linked challenges of global food insecurity and environmental degradation—many of which involve voluntary measures to improve agricultural efficiency and increase yield—grassroots actors have called for the re-regulation and state-based institutionalization of principles derived from the food sovereignty framework (Iles & Montenegro de Wit, 2014; Wittman, 2011). As articulated by international agrarian movements in the mid 1990s, these principles include ecological sustainability; distributive justice, ensuring a socially just allocation of resources (Agyeman & Alkon, 2011); and procedural justice, which involves “fair and transparent decision-making processes that are adaptable to specific local conditions” (Loos et al., 2014, p. 357).
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 | 0.046 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".