Farming ourselves to death? the confluence of crises in the food system in British Columbia and Canada, and the potential for change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Throughout the late 20th century North American agriculture has followed a trajectory of increasingly industrialized production and processing of food (Donaldson and Macinerney 1973; Qualman and Tait 2004). Ownership of Canada’s agriculture land and resources is increasingly consolidated (Qualman and Tait 2004; Statistics Canada 2006a). This raises important questions about how well this consolidated ownership, a decreasing number of corporations focused on agri-business, can serve the public (Qualman and Tait 2004; Berry 1995; Shand 2002; Shiva 2002) and the negative environmental impacts of industrial agriculture (Goering et al. 1993; Roach 2005). An increasingly energy-dependent food system is also a major concern in an era of climate change and peak oil (IPCC 2007; Walker and Sidneysmith 2007; Duncan and Youngquist 1999; Pimentel et al. 1973; Hirsch 2005). With British Columbia’s small farmers facing a range of ecological, economic and socio-political challenges, (Govender et al. 2006; Connell et al. 2007; Cowichan Green Community 2008; Masselink, 2008; SmartGrowth 2008) planners in BC need to consider food security and its relationship to local and global crisis as a key issue of 21st-century planning.
Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.
How this classification was reachedexpand
The three-model screen
all 5,600 screened works →All three models called this out of scope.
Essay on food system crises and planning in British Columbia; Canadian in subject but about agriculture, not the research system.
The article analyzes agriculture, food security, and planning in Canada rather than the Canadian research system.
Food-system and agricultural crisis analysis in BC/Canada; object is food security, not the research system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".