MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017174682 · doi:10.37370/raizes.2016.v36.457

A typology of “infrastructure of the middle” in university food procurement in England and Canada:

2016· article· en· W3017174682 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lori Stahlbrand

Bibliographic record

VenueRaízes Revista de Ciências Sociais e Econômicas · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersWilfrid Laurier University
KeywordsProcurementSustainabilityTypologyFood systemsAgriculturePraxisMiddle EastBusinessMiddle managementPublic administrationEconomic growthPolitical sciencePublic relationsMarketingSociologyFood securityGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article introduces a new term – “infrastructure of the middle” – and explains how it helps understand how sustainability transition will happen in the food system. The evidence comes from 67 interviews with leaders of university food procurement initiatives in England and Canada. As founder and former president of the civil society organization which played a central role in the Canadian example, I bring a perspective informed by praxis, both as a practitioner and as a scholar applying Sustainability Transition Theory. I adapted the term infrastructure of the middle from Kirschenmann et al.’s concept of “agriculture of the middle”, which describes the midsize farms and ranches most at risk in a globalized food system. Infrastructure of the middle refers to the resources and networks that create a critical mass, enabling mid-size sustainable food producers to meet the needs of foodservice clients, especially public sector institutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.837

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.011
Science and technology studies0.0220.023
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.165
Teacher spread0.155 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRaízes Revista de Ciências Sociais e EconômicasSame topicOrganic Food and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207