Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As the primary purveyors of food within most neighborhoods, food retailers—particularly grocery stores—are key determinants of health. Grocery stores are also an important venue for food producers to access their customers. Over the previous 100 years—and more rapidly over the previous 40 years—ownership among grocery retailers has become concentrated in fewer firms. As a consequence, grocery stores have emerged as food system “gatekeepers.” On one side of the gate are consumers, who depend on these firms to access the food supply. On the other side are the food producers: farmers, ranchers, fishers, processors, and manufacturers. As concentration in the grocery retail sector increases, so too have the grocery giants’ practices enabled them to assume much stronger positions in the buyer‐supplier relationship. With a focus on the United States and Canada, this article examines the history and rise to dominance of the largest grocery retailers and the impacts this dominance has had on the food system. Whereas most food retailers are structured under private or publicly traded models of ownership, the cooperative business model—specifically, the consumer‐cooperative model—is presented as an important alternative. Cooperatives are a democratic form of ownership that enables the people who most depend on the grocery store (shoppers) to become equal owners in the business along with thousands of others in their community. The importance of consumer‐food cooperatives (food co‐ops) is examined, including specific case studies of small and large urban centers where food co‐ops are providing substantial benefits to the communities they operate in.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".