MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316893422 · doi:10.5304/jafscd.2011.021.012

The Community Food Centre: Creating space for a just, sustainable, and healthy food system

2011· article· en· W2316893422 on OpenAlexafffund
Charles Z. Levkoe, Sarah Wakefield

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community Development · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaGeorge Cedric Metcalf Charitable Foundation
KeywordsThrivingFood systemsSustainabilityBusinessSustainable agricultureSpace (punctuation)Environmental planningPolitical scienceMarketingFood securitySociologyGeographyEcologyComputer scienceAgricultureSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alternative food initiatives have been challenged by critics to address the long-term, structural challenges confronting the food system in an integrated and comprehensive way. Confronting these challenges requires dynamic, multilevel and multisectoral strategies that integrate antipoverty efforts, ecological sustainability, food, wellness and community building throughout all aspects of the food system. Moving initiatives beyond the margins can begin by identifying and building on the successes of existing projects. In this pursuit, this paper articulates the case of The Stop Community Food Centre as it has evolved from a food bank offering emergency relief into a thriving neighborhood hub where people come together to grow, cook, and share food, and where people advocate for measures to establish a more just, sustainable, and healthy food system for all.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.013
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0020.015
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.173 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community DevelopmentSame topicOrganic Food and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207