MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320566826 · doi:10.5304/jafscd.2014.042.012

Food System Governance

2014· article· en· W2320566826 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kate Clancy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community Development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBioeconomy and Sustainability Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceDemocracyRelevance (law)Work (physics)BusinessPolitical sciencePublic relationsProcess managementEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First paragraphs: Following on my columns on scale (fall 2012) and feedback loops (spring 2013), I want to turn to another systems concept that is difficult and sometimes risky, but one that has to be embraced if we are to reach our goal of sustainable, resilient food systems. The concept is governance, which in general is understood as "managing, steering and guiding of public affairs by governing procedures and institutions in a democratic manner" (Pisano, Berger, Endl, & Sedlacko, 2011, p. 3). Governance has resonance in many different settings, but two are of particular interest: the first is the relevance and efficacy of organizational structures that we encounter and work with in attempting to change policy; the second is the governance of supply chains, which is so critical to any chain's success. I'm echoing some of the ideas in a recent article by the Nourishing Communities research group out of Ontario, Canada (Blay-Palmer et al., 2013). I'm also impressed with the sophisticated thinking going on around governance and sustain¬able development, the objective of which is to achieve simultaneously the population' s economic well-being, environmental protection, and social equity (Pisano et al., 2011). The idea is that governments and other institutions have to be open and capable of "steering societal development along more sustainable lines" (Meadowcroft quoted in Pisano et al., 2011, p. 4). This is no small task because most democratic institutions are fixated on economic growth and not on the common good as represented in sustainability and social justice (Bosselmann, Engel, & Taylor, 2008). Of course governance exists at all levels — global, national, regional, local, and corporate — and tends to be challenging because comprehensive approaches to both sustainability and development require an integration across many sectors, stakeholders, and levels of politics (Pisano et al., 2011). Flexibility is another prerequisite. All the social and environ-mental "actors" are in motion all the time — so plans and strategies that aren't collaborative and adaptive will not hit the mark.....

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0950.018

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community DevelopmentSame topicBioeconomy and Sustainability DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207