Federalism and fragmentation: Addressing the possibilities of a food policy for Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian federalism poses unique challenges for the development of a national food policy. Under the Constitution Act, 1867, the federal government and the provinces are granted powers to govern exclusively in certain areas and to share jurisdiction in others. Where one level of government has exclusive jurisdiction, the other level of government is not permitted to interfere. However, good food system governance requires addressing policy coherence and coordination horizontally, across sectors such as agriculture, trade, health, finance, environment, immigration, fisheries, social protection, and vertically between the federal government, the provinces, and international and transnational actors. The development of a national food policy for Canada offers an opportunity to harmonize law and policymaking, and clarify the key roles that all levels of government play in the development and governance of food systems. This will require identifying sites of conflict and overlap, but also spaces for collaboration, coordination, and innovation. A national food policy will necessarily have to work within the constraints of Canadian constitutional law, but federalism and the division of powers can be harnessed to create a more just, equitable, democratic and sustainable food system.
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 | 0.009 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".