MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911162061 · doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v6i1.280

Self-operated vs. corporate contract: A study of food procurement at two universities in Manitoba

2019· article· en· W2911162061 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Michaela Bohunicky, Annette Aurélie Desmarais, Meghan Entz

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementTransformational leadershipPoliticsSustainabilityPublic universityFood servicePublic administrationBusinessAdministration (probate law)Public relationsService (business)Political sciencePublic serviceMarketingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Public institutions are increasingly being pressured to demonstrate how they are meeting their responsibilities and obligations to sustainability. Yet there is little academic research on food procurement at universities in Canada. This article examines issues related to procurement of local and sustainable food at two academic institutions in Manitoba: the University of Winnipeg (UW) and the University of Manitoba (UM). Following Brown et al.’s (2012) call for transformational change, we argue that the experiences at each university demonstrate that a food system transformation can best occur by moving away from corporate food service contracts. The ability to do so is dependent on a number of other factors including, but not limited to: political will of the administration, student activism and support from non-university sectors.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0310.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentationSame topicOrganic Food and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207