Working together: Civil Society Working for Food Security in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Working Together: Civil Society Input for Food Security in Canada was held on 15-17 June 2001, at Ryerson Polytechnic University, Toronto. This conference was a first in Canada, bringing together representatives of various civil society organizations and networks from every province and territory to develop strategies for increasing Canada’s commitment to Food Security both domestically and internationally. The conference aimed to: 1. develop a working plan for a civil society based national action plan for food security; 2. assess the contributions of the Canadian government to food security nationally and internationally; 3. make practical policy proposals to provincial and federal governments on achieving the goals of Canada’s Action Plan for Food Security. The conference was designed as an interactive event, where, besides a number of keynote speakers, participants were also involved in question and answer sessions and workshops on designated topics. Four day-long workshops on four key themes included contributions from some keynote speakers as well as active participation of workshop participants. These themes were: · Right to Food and Social Justice. · Sustainable Agriculture and Food Systems. · Community Health and Food Security. · Food Security in Canadian Foreign Policy (Aid and Trade). The proceedings of this conference was compiled by Mustafa Koc and Rod MacRae. We hope that this document will begin a discussion rather than ending it. We see this as a working document to be expanded reflecting our common concerns and the diversity of our special needs. The conference also passed a resolution recommending the formation of a national Canadian Food Security Network. Information on the network can be found at: http://www.ryerson.ca/~foodsec/foodsec/fd.htm The Conference recognizes that food security requires adequate amounts of safe, nutritious, culturally acceptable food be accessible to all in a dignified and affordable manner; that food producers be enabled to earn a fair return on their labour and that food production methods sustain the environment. These basic elements of food security require a fundamentally new direction for Canadian and world food and health promotion systems.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.048 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.005 |
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".