Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to elucidate the nature of food issue in our society and propose a forum to discuss multi-facet issues of food based on the North American experience, such as food policy council (FPC). Contemporary food system in Japan is full of problems, such as low level self-sufficiency, food loss, problem of food access, large food miles, declining food culture under globalization, and so on. After reviewing these food related issues, the paper refers to the US and Canadian experiences on food policy council as a model to provide a forum for various stakeholders with different or even conflicting interests. Based on observations on the FPCs, such as Knoxville (US) and Toronto (Canada), author emphasized public aspect of food issues and draw attentions to differences in structural aspects of food between North America and Japan. The paper also tries to draw attention to differences between North America and Japan in terms of food issues. In particular, the demographic and geographical differences would exist of a major structural aspect when considering food issue in Japan.
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 | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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.
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".