Bibliographic record
Abstract
This dissertation investigates the food movement’s barriers and strategies for changing the Canadian food system. I research the disconnect between two bodies of literature, one that posits that the food movement must engage in political action in order to support food systems change, and the other that the food movement alone has had little impact on policy change. In light of this tension, I utilize sustainability transitions theory to examine barriers to food movement engagement in policy change, and apply a politics of the possible framework to investigate food movement strategies. In this way, I ultimately examine the ways in which the food movement can work within the current system and simultaneously support systemic change. The overall aim of this research was to examine food movement strategies in Canada to further understanding of the potential impact of this movement for food systems change. This mixed methods research combines theoretical reflection and different empirical approaches to assess barriers to food movement participation in Canadian policymaking. The results provide both broad overview and in-depth examination of food movement strategies in the Canadian, neoliberal, context. Taken as a whole, the dissertation contributes to scholarship on sustainability transitions, debates on visions of sustainable food systems, and further understanding of the politics of the possible in the Canadian food movement. The findings suggest that the current political context influences the strategies that the food movement uses to optimize opportunities and mitigate barriers in transitioning to a 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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".