MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995898177 · doi:10.1080/19320248.2013.845867

Stakeholder and Policy Maker Perception of Key Issues in Food Systems Planning and Policy Making

2014· article· en· W1995898177 on OpenAlex
Richard C. Sadler, Jason Gilliland, Godwin Arku

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood systemsCognitive dissonanceStakeholderPerceptionFood policyBusinessMarketingPublic relationsKey (lock)Public economicsFood securityPolitical sciencePsychologyEconomicsAgricultureSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research findings have suggested a vital need to understand the food environment: the pervasiveness of unhealthy food exacerbates social inequalities; malnutrition contributes to obesity, heart disease, and diabetes; and planners and policy makers have historically been absent from the food system. Little research has shown how food system actors vary in their individual understandings of these and other general truths. The lack of understanding or misunderstanding of key issues can lead to ineffective policy formulation or efforts toward solving the wrong problem.To determine opinions on food system issues and to uncover dissonance between research and practice, a survey was administered to stakeholders from various sectors of the food system across North America. Significant differences existed regarding problems and solutions, suggesting challenges for food system actors. These varying opinions illustrate the need to conduct and disseminate empirical research on the food system to encourage evidence-based decision making.

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.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.208 · 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