‘Food is a Right … Nobody Should Be Starving on Our Streets’: Perceptions of Food Bank Usage in a Mid-Sized City in Ontario, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this exploratory descriptive qualitative study was to explore the experiences of people accessing the food bank in a mid-sized city in Ontario, Canada, and to gain their perspectives on more progressive alternatives to the charitable food bank model. We conducted interviews with 11 clients of the local food bank and two interviews with individuals experiencing food insecurity who do not access food banks (n = 13), and analysed these data using thematic analysis. Findings document participants’ perceptions of the barriers to obtaining an adequate income, the key characteristics of and challenges associated with food banks, and proposed alternatives to the existing model. Using our study data, we document how the extant charitable food system engenders human rights violations; consider what would be required to move from a charitable model to a rights-based approach; and describe how food bank and human rights practitioners can promote a human rights framework in Canadian public policymaking. Through a rights-based framework, food provision moves beyond mere benevolence to positive rights; rights requiring legislative action and legal recourse should they be denied. In seeking alternatives to food banks, we conclude that a national strategy, built on a basic income and human rights framework, is needed. The perpetuation of food banks ensures the charitable food model is preserved, and people remain hungry.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it