Community perceptions and barriers to accessing local produce in the Dunbar-Southlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding a community’s lived experiences is pivotal when preparing to engage, participate and influence the community’s experiences. By asking the questions “What are the community perceptions of local produce in the Dunbar-Southlands?” and “What are the present barriers or challenges that community members face in accessing local produce?”, the researcher partnered with the UBC Farm sought to understand the Dunbar-Southlands residents’ views and access to local produce. Interviewing 3 residents and 3 experts, distributing a questionnaire to 40 residents and compiling demographic data provided answers that informed the recommendations made to the UBC Farm. The research found that residents perceive local produce to be better than conventional produce. Experts and the residents revealed that freshness, quality, taste, supporting the local economy and lowered carbon emissions were the main motivations for buying local produce. The following barriers to accessing local produce were also revealed: residents find that it is not easy to physically access places selling local produce, the price of said local produce is higher than conventional produce, consuming local produce would make no difference to their wellbeing and limited education about local produce prevent some residents from understanding or justifying the expense. When asked, residents expressed a desire for more affordable prices, increased access to and more education about local produce. It can be said that residents were of the opinion that local produce is better, but local is not necessarily accessible and is expensive. Among the residents that do want to buy local, the challenge lies in making it easier for them to do so – whether in terms of increasing general accessibility or providing them rational reasons for the expense. It is thus recommended that the UBC Farm (1) educate residents about the value of buying and consuming local produce, (2) bring local produce to the residents, (3) make local produce more affordable for the residents who can’t afford to splurge on food, and (4) partner with small, experienced producers in the area to re-mould the residents’ lived experience of local produce in an effective and far reaching way. Given the limited resources and narrowed scope of this paper’s focus, future research might look into how these neighbourhood food experiences fit within the City of Vancouver “greening” ambitions and food strategies. Taken as a launching point, this paper’s recommendations can begin to guide the UBC Farm in its ambitions to engage surrounding neighbourhoods and form more sustainable communities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".