Food Desertification: Situating Choice and Class Relations within an Urban Political Economy of Declining Food Access
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While food deserts create whole sets of tangible consequences for people living within them, the problem has yet to be the subject of much normative, in-depth evaluation as an urban political economy of food access. This paper provides a critical analysis of a specific food desert and its responses, drawing on a case study of the low-income, spatially segregated North End of the small city of Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The main thrust of the paper is that the food desert remains a useful yet underexplored phenomenon through which to reveal the complexities and tensions surrounding the treatment of “choice” in a classed society. Understood as an urban political economy of declining food access, the food desert phenomenon reveals capital’s complex role in the promotion or violation of dignity through the urban geographies of acquiring food for oneself, family, or household. Through the data presented here, the article also argues for a collective pause among critical scholars to radicalize, rather than reject, the role of consumer choice in a more just food system, and for further normative engagement with urban landscapes of retail consolidation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".