MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1808492507 · doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v2i2.111

FS - SYNTHESIS - The hefty challenges of food sovereignty’s adulthood

2015· article· en· W1808492507 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Andrés García Trujillo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsBalsillie School of International AffairsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood sovereigntyLeverage (statistics)SovereigntyMaturity (psychological)Food systemsPolitical economyPolitical scienceNarrativeParadigm shiftPoliticsDreamAgricultureFood securitySociologyDevelopment economicsEconomicsPsychologyLawGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The three articles in this section reflect a broader shift that is taking place in the debate on food sovereignty. After almost two decades since its inception, the term—which is also a “counter-narrative”, a “mobilizing tactic”, and a “political agenda” (Desmarais, this issue)—has gained significant leverage as an alternative paradigm to industrial agriculture. A sign of the term’s maturity may be the growing consensus shared by critical food studies scholars and activists about its potential as an alternative paradigm. At the same time, food sovereignty’s adulthood is rife with complex challenges. At stake is no less than turning a dream born in the margins into a concrete, viable reality for the global agrifood system. This article focuses on three challenges faced by the food sovereignty movement today: (1) operating across multiple scales; (2) maintaining internal democratic practices as the movement continues to grow and become more complex; and (3) building cross-sectoral alliances to foster broader social change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.140 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentationSame topicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207