Human Security and Food Security in Geographical Study: Pragmatic Concepts or Elusive Theory?
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 explores how the concepts of ‘food security’ and ‘human security’ build common language between action‐based researchers and policy‐makers for effective knowledge translation. Both concepts are important examples of how research can inform policy aimed at social justice. While human security is still building a sense of itself, the concept of food security demonstrates how broader issues can be excluded from the common language and how this limits dialogue. In the process of building common language between researchers and policy‐makers, the agreed definition of food security excluded many important issues. As a result, the excluded, more radical issues have been pursued by off‐shoot movements that do less to directly engage the policy‐making process. Human security is a similar concept that is at risk of abandoning its radical origins in order to be considered workable by policy‐makers and academics alike. I argue that social justice theorization must maintain the audacity to envision radical improvements to the human condition, albeit pursuing working definitions for policy‐makers. Social justice and action‐based research should not shy away from theory that seeks to overcome inequity and injustice; it should work to meet the needs of people rather than meet the needs of existing policy‐making technocracy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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