MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2778436276 · doi:10.29173/comp37

But does voting really feed you? Ideas about democracy's role in famine and chronic hunger

2011· article· en· W2778436276 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Janine Hancock

Bibliographic record

VenueCOMPASS · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDemocracyFamineGovernment (linguistics)ScarcityPhenomenonPolitical scienceVotingPolitical economyDevelopment economicsEconomicsLawPoliticsEpistemologyMarket economyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scarcity of democracy is often cited as the source of hunger. In this paper the origin of this idea, the arguments behind it, and its validity are examined. In doing so, different types of hunger are addressed. The author also looks at the role of government systems in the famines of Ireland, India, and Sudan and the effect that democracy has on food policy decisions in the United States. By the conclusion of this paper, the reader will be familiar with the phenomenon of citing democracy in discussions of food. A lack of democracy is not the source of hunger, and democracy is not inherently equipped to confront hunger.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.100
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCOMPASSSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207