Valuation of Country Food in Nunavut Based on Energy and Protein Replacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communicating value across the pluralities of Indigenous Peoples’ food systems requires attention to economy and environment, food and wildlife, and the health of the people and that of the land. Valuation of distinct entities is always difficult but often essential to describe collective wealth and well-being, to quantify trade-offs, and to consider compensation when one is compromised for another. Here we estimate the replacement value of Nunavut country food by combining information on the amount and nutritional composition of harvested country food with the nutritional content and local price of store-bought food. Comparing the five-year average of energy and protein available in reported harvest to recommended dietary allowances indicates that 17 of 21 Nunavut communities harvest enough country food to satisfy the protein requirements of all community members. Nunavut’s country food system annually harvests five million kg of protein-rich food from across the territory, which would cost $198 million to purchase as store-bought protein, with a replacement value between $13.19 and $39.67 per kg depending on energy versus protein replacement and the inclusion versus exclusion of store-bought food subsidies. These valuations are higher than most previous estimates of local food value because they are more reflective of the energy and nutrient richness of country food and the high price of store-bought food in northern communities. The country food system is priceless in many, profound ways; better awareness of its energy and protein cost of replacement, together with the breadth of its nutritional and cultural value, may help to ensure local food systems are prioritized in northern food security and economic development initiatives.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".