The Power of Participation: How Can Community Partners Sustain the Halifax Mobile Food Market?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile Food Markets (MFMs) are innovative interventions which can support healthy eating within lower-income communities. MFMs enhance food security by increasing access to healthy food by alleviating travel costs in areas where nutritious and culturally-relevant food options may be limited or challenging to physically or financially access. One such MFM operates within Halifax, Nova Scotia. This market began as a 21-week pilot project as a means to support a healthy and sustainable food movement in Halifax. Pilot evaluation data suggested that community partnerships played a critical role in sustaining the MFM, but little was known about how such partnerships function in this context. The purpose of this project was to explore how the positive outcomes of the MFM could be sustained through effective participation in partnerships. A feminist poststructural approach, which seeks to understand relations of power, was applied to explore how partnerships function in support of the MFM. This approach facilitated greater understanding of the significance of power relations within MFM partnerships. Findings suggest that mutual benefit, relation to MFM purpose, capacity of the partner, and being able to see the results of their work are important for the sustainability of partnership relations. It was also found that the sustainability of relationships with communities depended upon fostering community involvement and building trusting relationships. Funding relationships were also identified as necessary for the MFM to operate. The results of this research may be used to inform strategies to develop and sustain effective partnerships within the MFM in Halifax.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.003 |
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".