Urban agriculture in the making or gardening as epistemology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the production of Prairie Urban Farm, an urban agricultural initiative in the Canadian city of Edmonton, Alberta. Motivated by our involvement in the initiative and guided by a broader interest in the evolving meaning and politics of urban agriculture, the paper presents Prairie Urban Farm as a negotiated and emergent social space. Rather than limit understandings of the initiative to official representations and discourses, the analysis draws on interviews with regular volunteers as well as personal reflections to emphasise everyday urban agriculture – those practices, understandings, and motivations often subsumed under official framings or tropes that together characterise the everyday, lived aspects of urban agriculture. The paper pursues tensions between Prairie Urban Farm understood as a sustainability and food security initiative and more ambivalent understandings. We ask, is Prairie Urban Farm, officially presented as an urban agriculture and food security project, not simply a community garden by another name? Obscuring these boundaries through a detailed ethnographic and qualitative analysis, we make an argument for finding value in urban agriculture beyond discursive tropes and in relation to the reflexive possibilities engendered within a view of gardening as epistemology.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.123 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".