Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative food initiatives (AFIs) aim to challenge the corporate-led, industrial food system by attempting to develop viable localised solutions. However, critics have highlighted the way unreflexive and uncritical actions by AFIs have resulted in their cooptation and the reproduction of economic exploitation and political oppression. In this paper, I argue that changing the current food system demands a transformative orientation, which in turn requires understanding and addressing the root of current challenges through the interrelated perspectives of social justice, ecological sustainability, community health and democratic governance. I outline a framework for a transformative food politics by elaborating on critiques from within activist and academic literatures and suggest a path forward for the evolving food movement. This framework is described by three interrelated elements: (1) the transition to collective subjectivities; (2) a whole food system approach and (3) a politics of reflexive localisation. This framework could be used by AFIs as a tool for reflection and critical engagement in food system transformation. Finally, I draw on three cases, SunRoot EcoSolidarity Association, The Stop Community Food Centre and Local Food Plus to highlight how these elements are being applied in practice.
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 | 0.023 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".