MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124680936 · doi:10.4000/aof.11262

L’organisation communautaire comme réponse collective aux enjeux de l’insécurité alimentaire au Québec

2020· article· fr· W3124680936 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean-Baptiste Leclercq, Anne-Marie Ouimet, Renée-Ève Dionne, Hélène Felteau, Élise Solomon, François Soucisse, Catherine St-Germain, Martine Thériault, Sophie Coulombe

Bibliographic record

VenueAnthropology of food · 2020
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Sciences and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical scienceHumanitiesSociologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

À Montréal, les organisateurs et organisatrices communautaires (OC) interviennent dans différents champs de pratique, dont celui de la sécurité alimentaire. Ces professionnels définissent l’organisation communautaire comme une intervention de soutien professionnel et d’influence dans une communauté permettant d’agir sur les facteurs collectifs qui ont une incidence sur la santé et le bien-être. Elle s’adresse prioritairement aux populations précarisées dans une perspective de justice sociale. Cette étude porte sur les pratiques d’organisation communautaire en sécurité alimentaire. Elle s’inscrit dans une démarche de réflexivité collective entreprise dans le cadre d’une collaboration entre des chercheurs et des membres d’un Comité d’organisateur-rices communautaires en sécurité alimentaire œuvrant au sein d’un établissement du réseau de la santé et des services sociaux québécois. Cette étude a permis de dégager les rôles de l’organisation communautaire en sécurité alimentaire, de cerner les principaux défis de leur pratique et de questionner leur capacité d’action sur les inégalités sociales.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.405

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.010
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.271 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnthropology of foodSame topicSocial Sciences and GovernanceFrench-language works237,207