MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174695208 · doi:10.1080/17549175.2021.1918750

Food assets for whom? Community perspectives on food asset mapping in Canada

2021· article· en· W3174695208 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Tammara Soma, Tamara Shulman, Belinda Li, Janette Bulkan, Meagan Curtis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Urbanism International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicUrban Agriculture and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFood securityAsset (computer security)Context (archaeology)Focus groupBusinessFood systemsMainstreamEnvironmental resource managementMarketingGeographyEconomicsPolitical scienceComputer securityAgricultureComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food asset mapping is an emerging tool to promote food security and food resiliency in Canadian cities. It provides a baseline of a city’s food assets and identifies local food infrastructures that can support community food security. Mainstream food asset maps predominantly focus on the built environment, giving less consideration to the natural environment and social assets. Moreover, in the absence of community perspectives, informal, and racialized food spaces might not even be considered. Drawing upon the findings from a community focus group and food asset mapping workshop, we engaged diverse community members from the City of Vancouver (n=20) to further define and identify key food assets in Vancouver. Of note, several participants raised their discomfort with the term “asset”, especially within the context of colonialization in Vancouver, and raised the question of who gets to define what is and what is not a “food asset.”

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Urbanism International Research on Placemaking and Urban SustainabilitySame topicUrban Agriculture and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207