MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003945999 · doi:10.1080/07409710.2020.1718280

Farm-to-fork… and beyond? A call to incorporate food waste into food systems research

2020· article· en· W3003945999 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Foodways · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood Waste Reduction and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood wasteScholarshipFood systemsFood studiesFork (system call)Relevance (law)Food processingMarketingBusinessSociologyFood securityPolitical scienceEconomicsAgricultureComputer scienceEngineeringEconomic growthEcologyWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although food waste is gaining attention as an issue of environmental, social, and economic concern, this topic has only been taken up minimally by food scholars, despite its apparent relevance to food systems scholarship. Through a literature scan of nine food systems journals, we identify and characterize all instances of “food waste” and “food loss” mentions. We find that reference to this important topic is growing within food studies but is still a marginal concept. To help advance the discourse on food wastage, we suggest three potential areas of food systems research that could extend the scholarship, particularly drawing from analytical developments in discard studies. We encourage food studies scholars to consider waste as an intrinsic element of the food systems they study and as a fruitful boundary topic for future research.

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.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.202 · 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