MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620991875 · doi:10.1079/pavsnnr201510025

Growth of local food systems: a review of potential food safety implications.

2015· review· en· W2620991875 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCABI Reviews · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsCégep de Saint-Laurent
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood safetyBusinessFood systemsOutreachSAFERLocal governmentAgricultureMarketingFood packagingGovernment (linguistics)Food industryFood securityEconomic growthEconomicsFood sciencePolitical scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In the USA, local food markets account for a growing share of agriculture production and with this growth come unique food safety challenges. Even though consumers often perceive local foods as safer and more wholesome, there is no evidence that local food products would be less prone to contamination with foodborne pathogens, especially since local foods generally receive less government oversight both at the federal and local levels. This paper reviews the history and growth of direct marketing venues for local food commodities and the food safety issues that have been identified or that could arise with increased growth. In addition, the current knowledge related to food safety education and outreach at local food outlets is discussed. This review concludes that, if left unaddressed, the role of local food commodities as vehicles of foodborne pathogens may become more significant and that food safety training and education that is specific to personnel (i.e. market managers, vendors, farm-to-school buyers) in direct-marketing venues is integral for the protection of public health, specifically consumers of local food commodities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCABI ReviewsSame topicOrganic Food and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207