Toward a radical food geography praxis: integrating theory, action, and geographic analysis in pursuit of more equitable and sustainable food systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Radical geographies scholarship has evolved over the past decades in pursuit of transforming spatial, political-economic, social, and ecological engagements within oppressive structures. Similarly, food systems scholarship demonstrates increasing interest in the scalar, sociopolitical, and ecological dynamics of food systems, often with an applied or action-oriented focus. Building on these connected, yet divergent, traditions of scholarship and action, we propose a radical food geography praxis that is rooted in the intersections of active resistance to structures that (re)produce power inequity and oppression in food systems in specific places and across spaces, and an ongoing process of critical and theoretical reflection about these structures and geographies. The radical food geography praxis we propose consists of three primary and interconnected elements: (1) theoretical engagements with power and structures of oppression both inside and outside the academy; (2) action through academic, social movement, and civil society collaborations; and (3) analysis through a broadly defined geographic lens. Through bringing together radical geographies and food systems scholarship, a radical food geography praxis reveals the interconnectivity between places and movements, relationality between land and people, the flows of people, environmental resources, ideas, and culture, and the diverse approaches to achieving justice-oriented objectives. In order to build more equitable and sustainable food systems, it is essential to engage with these geographic realities in deeply theoretical and action-oriented ways.
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 | 0.043 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.132 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.038 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".