MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044198215 · doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.714763

Parallel alternatives: Chinese-Canadian farmers and the Metro Vancouver local food movement

2012· article· en· W2044198215 on OpenAlexaffabout
Natalie Gibb, Hannah Wittman

Bibliographic record

VenueLocal Environment · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement (music)Economic geographyGeographyRegional sciencePolitical scienceBusinessEconomic growthAgricultural economicsAdvertisingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores how food system localisation efforts in Metro Vancouver, Canada, intersect with tensions in the global agri-food system, including racial inequalities. Drawing on archival research, participant observation of local food marketing and policy-making, and interviews with local food movement participants, policy-makers, and Chinese-Canadian farmers, we explore factors that have influenced the emergence of a food system comprised of at least two parallel food networks, both of which challenge dominant modes of food production and distribution. An older network consists of roadside stores and greengrocers supplied by Chinese-Canadian farmers. A newer, rapidly expanding network includes farmers' markets and other institutions publicly supported by the local food movement. Both networks are “local” in that they link producers, consumers, and places; however, these networks have few points of intentional connection and collaboration. We conclude by considering some of the subtle and surprising ways food justice is, and is not, being realised in the Metro Vancouver local food system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0370.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations42
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLocal EnvironmentSame topicOrganic Food and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207