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 OpenAlexaff
Tara L. Maudrie, Uriyoán Colón‐Ramos, Kaitlyn Harper, Brittany Jock, Joel Gittelsohn

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.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.004
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.285
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

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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Developments in NutritionSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207