Assessing the State of Food and Water Security in Indigenous Communities in Southern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, food and water security are threatened by a number of socioeconomic and environmental factors including population growth, climate change and changes in land-use. These threats affect the availability, accessibility, utilization and stability of food and water resources required to achieve food and water security. Food and water security are linked primarily through the agricultural sector of food production, where a lack of water may result in lower yield and lead to food scarcity. Conversely, agricultural management processes may lead to contamination of water resources, highlighting the importance of evaluating food and water security using an interdisciplinary approach. Indigenous communities in Canada continue to be affected by numerous political, environmental and socioeconomic challenges to food and water security. These challenges may be related to physical and human geography, political and economic barriers, or food and water resources management and policies. In Southern Ontario, the community of Six Nations is facing obstacles to food and water security that may be associated with growing stresses in the region due to population growth, urban development and climate change. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the state of food and water security in the Six Nations region in Southern Ontario, and investigate the associated socioeconomic and environmental pressures in the area. The study also highlights the importance of incorporating traditional knowledge and community involvement into the assessment of food and water security, identification of threats and future development of solutions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".