MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053382757 · doi:10.1177/2043820614537166

Expanding the possibilities for a future free of hunger

2014· article· en· W2053382757 on OpenAlex

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

VenueDialogues in Human Geography · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood securityFood sovereigntyNormativeSovereigntyFood systemsWork (physics)Political scienceBusinessPolitical economyEconomicsLawPoliticsGeographyEngineeringAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In attempting a rapprochement between food security and food sovereignty, it is important to understand their full historical contexts. It is also important to note that they are not ‘like’ categories. Food security is a normative objective, where food sovereignty is a normative process. The rejection of food security by some food sovereignty writers reflects too narrow an understanding of the rich history of food security and its continuing importance in policy research and analysis as well as in providing direction for food security laws and programmes. Many equate food security with a simplistic insistence on supply to the exclusion of food security’s other dimensions. This is mistaken but should not lead to a rejection of all food security work. Food security and food sovereignty are complementary rather than substitutable terms. Respect for the histories and achievements of both will expand our possibilities for realizing a future free of hunger.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.206 · 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