Understanding traditional food behaviour and food security in rural First Nation communities: Implications for food policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The health and sustainability of rural and remote communities is undermined by the international market-based food system. In the reality of these communities the cost of store-bought food is high, the nutritional quality low, and the availability tenuous. Furthermore, homogenization of the market-based food system undermines the diversity and ecological relevance of residents' food knowledge, and thus their resilience and capacity to innovate. Development of a local food system that emerges organically from the unique human and ecological setting encourages the utilization of both locally sourced and market-based food that may strengthen the autonomy and economic vitality of these communities. We will present findings from three research projects with First Nation communities in Northern Ontario. The aim of this research was to understand local and market-based food behaviour from the perspective of community members. Relationships were examined among food behaviour, food knowledge, food values, perceived food security, cultural connection, and well-being. In one study we also explored the effects of perceived land contamination on these variables. The findings from the research suggest policies in natural resource management, agriculture, and other areas that will support the emergence of a local food system that incorporates forest, cultivated, and store-bought foods and may strengthen the health and sustainability of rural and remote communities. Keywords: market-based food system, local food system, sustainability, First Nation communities, food security, holistic health
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".