Agri‐Food Governance and Expertise: The Production of International Food Standards
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines a particular mode of agri‐food governance: international food standard setting. Sociological accounts of technical regulatory processes such as standard setting can help to illuminate the role of expertise in the governance of the agri‐food system. Firstly, the potential contribution of the concept of epistemic communities to the analysis of international food standard setting is discussed. Secondly, the article details the architecture of international trade regulation and the operational procedures of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (the Codex), the intergovernmental organisation in which international food standards are set. Thirdly, the role of scientific expertise to the standard setting process in the Codex is explored through a case‐study of the attempt to establish an international definition for dietary fibre. The article concludes by reflecting upon the importance of contestation over knowledge claims to the conduct of agri‐food governance.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it