Let them pay for cake: considering social enterprise business models for emergency food relief in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores whether social enterprise business models, which charge food insecureindividuals for donated food, offer a sustainable and dignified means of promoting foodsecurity, or simply perpetuate a neoliberal abdication of government responsibility. Demandfor food via emergency food relief initiatives is growing strongly in Australia, with significantnew demand from the individuals who might be regarded as the working poor. Frontlinecharitable organisations who obtain donated food and make it available for free via initiativessuch as food pantries and soup kitchens, are struggling to meet surging demand at a time ofretreating government support. The idea that these benevolent organisations might charge foodinsecure individuals for donated food is counter intuitive, to the point of being prohibitedwithin relevant state based legislation. However, user pays models are gaining traction incountries such as Canada, the United Kingdom and France, both because they offer a fundingstream to charitable agencies and because it is claimed they respect the dignity of foodinsecure individuals. Using a whole of supply chain perspective, this study has gathered in-depthinterview data from a range of industry participants as well as survey data from endclients, to examine what role, if any, user pays social enterprise models might play in theAustralian emergency food relief landscape.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".