The Failures of Neoliberal Food Security and the Food Sovereignty Alternative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly one billion people suffer from hunger worldwide. This issue has been a central concern for the international community, with national governments, non-governmental organizations, and international organizations seeking solutions. The dominant response to the issue of hunger has largely centered around the concept of food security which emerged within a context dominated by neoliberal ideology. This Neoliberal Food Security approach has focused on expanding global food production and incorporating farmers into global food markets. Yet, despite decades of programs and initiatives, hunger remains a daunting problem. Food Sovereignty has been offered as an alternative approach, challenging the assumptions and conceptualizations which underpin Neoliberal Food Security and seeking to alter thestructures and unequal power relations inherent in the current global food system. This paper asserts that because Neoliberal Food Security fails to challenge the structures and inequalities which perpetuate hunger, it is an insufficient method for addressing the problem. In contrast, Food Sovereignty objects to the theories and practices of neoliberalism, thereby offering a radical alternative approach.
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 | 0.012 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".