School Gardens: Cultivating Food Security in Nova Scotia Public Schools?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: A small but growing body of peer-reviewed research suggests that school gardens can play a role in building community food security (CFS); however, to date little research exploring the role of school gardens in supporting CFS is available. This paper begins to address this gap in the literature. METHODS: A qualitative, exploratory, single-case study design was used. The focus of this case study was the school food garden at an elementary school in the River Valley, Nova Scotia, school community. RESULTS: Results provide useful information about potential CFS effects of school gardens in addition to the environmental effects on school gardens important to their effectiveness as CFS tools. Findings suggest children gained food-related knowledge, skills, and values that support long-term CFS. A local social and political landscape at the community, provincial, and school board level were key to strengthening this garden's contributions to CFS. CONCLUSIONS: We support Dietitians of Canada's nomination of school gardens as an indicator of CFS with theoretical and practical evidence, underscore the importance of a supportive environment, and need for further research in this area. Health professionals and community organizations provide critical support, helping to weave gardens into a greater movement towards building CFS.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".