MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181002059 · doi:10.1093/cdn/nzab093

A Scoping Review of the Use of Indigenous Food Sovereignty Principles for Intervention and Future Directions

2021· review· en· W3181002059 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Developments in Nutrition · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersRobert Wood Johnson Foundation
KeywordsIndigenousFood sovereigntySovereigntyIntervention (counseling)Political scienceEnvironmental ethicsSociologyEngineering ethicsFood securityMedicineEngineeringLawGeographyNursingPhilosophyEcologyBiologyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) environmental/intervention sustainability. Twenty intervention studies published between January 1, 2000 and February 5, 2020 were included. Most of the studies that scored high in IFS principles saw a positive impact on diet. This review found evidence supporting the value of IFS principles in the development, implementation, and evaluation of health interventions for Indigenous communities.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.285
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.191 · 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