Dueling the consumer-activist dualism: The consumption experiences of modern food activists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consumer-based food activism (CBFA) is increasingly a symbol of modern politics.Through eating, food purchasing, and other consumer behaviours, individuals advocate for social justice causes.However, CBFA is critiqued for being enabled or produced by neoliberal ideologies, which emphasize individuals' market-based positions as consumers over other (activist) roles, effectively diminishing any influence such personal behaviours have on changing broader structural systems.This project is an exploratory study investigating i) the types of food activism food activists are engaged in; ii) whether they experience CBFA as an effective means to cause social change; and iii) if their roles as consumers and activists are conflicting.In other words, this study seeks to ground the theoretical debates involving the ineffectiveness of CBFA and the dualistic consumer-activist identity.An online survey of self-identified contemporary food activists allowed the collection of data using both close-ended and open-ended questions.The results indicate that these food activists understand their roles as consumers as an opportune component of being food activists, while their effectiveness is both enabled and constrained by neoliberal market systems.While other studies investigate CBFA through particular forms such as organic or local food, this project contributes to the literature by recognizing that food activism is not confined to singular forms of CBFA, nor is it utilized to advocate for single food issues.Future research involving CBFA must continue to unpack the complexities involved in contemporary food activists' understandings of CBFA, its effectiveness, and their roles as both consumers and activists, while contemplating the stomach as a political space.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".