MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954574777 · doi:10.32920/22212049

The Stakes in Steak: Examining Barriers to and Opportunities for Alternatives to Animal Products in Canada

2023· article· en· W2954574777 on OpenAlexaffabout
Angela Lee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgricultural safety and regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsStatus quoPolitical scienceFood systemsAgricultureScrutinyWelfare economicsHumanitiesAgricultural scienceEconomicsFood securityGeographyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This Article considers some of the different food innovations being presented as potential solutions to the myriad problems associated with conventional models of industrial agriculture. Specifically, in vitro meat (IVM) and plant-based alternatives to animal products—and their corresponding regulatory and market structures— are compared and contrasted. Examining the idiosyncrasies around Canada’s approach to regulating these products reveals that the respective degrees of scrutiny may not be commensurate with the respective degrees of risk, due in part to the influence of powerful industry actors who wish to maintain the status quo. Given the significance and scope of the problems implicated by the industrial food production system, favouring special economic interests comes at the detriment of a much wider group of stakeholders. As such, the governance of new food innovations requires a more critical and thoughtful approach if it is to better reflect shared aspirations for a more just and sustainable food system for all. </p> <p>Cet article porte sur différentes innovations alimentaires présentées comme des solutions potentielles à la myriade de problèmes associés aux modèles conventionnels d'agriculture industrielle. Plus précisément, la viande in vitro (VIV) et les alternatives végétales aux produits d'origine animale—et leurs structures réglementaires et commerciales correspondantes—sont comparées et mises en contraste. L'examen des particularités de l'approche du Canada en matière de réglementation de ces produits révèle que la rigueur des analyses respectives n'est peut-être pas proportionnelle aux degrés respectifs de risque, en partie à cause de l'influence d'acteurs industriels puissants qui souhaitent maintenir le statu quo. Compte tenu de l'importance et de l'ampleur des problèmes posés par le système de production alimentaire industrielle, favoriser des intérêts économiques particuliers se fait au détriment d'un groupe beaucoup plus large d'acteurs. En tant que telle, la gouvernance des nouvelles innovations alimentaires exige une approche plus critique et réfléchie si l'on veut qu'elle reflète mieux les aspirations communes à un système alimentaire plus juste et durable pour tous. </p>

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.132 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAgricultural safety and regulationsFrench-language works237,207