Food Security, Food Sovereignty, and Bowhead Whale Hunts among the Iñupiat in Utqiaġvik, Alaska, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kishigami 94 economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life' (FAO 2006).Food security comprises four challenges.The first is food availability, which concerns whether there is enough food of appropriate quality.The second is food access, which concerns whether people are free of legal, political, economic, or social impediments to attaining nutritious food.The third is utilization, which concerns whether people can practically and effectively consume safe and nourishing food.The fourth is societal stability, which is necessary to ensure sufficient food availability, food access, and food utilisation.Attaining food security is a common goal of national governments and international organizations such as the United Nations.The phrase "food sovereignty" was coined by La Va Campesina, founded in 1993 as 'an international movement bringing together millions of peasants, small-and mediumsize farmers, landless people, rural women and youth, Indigenous people, migrants and agricultural workers from around the world' (La Va Campesina 2020).The well-known international NGO insists that the sovereignty of food production and distribution should belong to the people and communities that produce food locally.At the Nylni Forum 2007 in Slingu, Mali, La Va Campesina was among those who produced the Nylni Declaration, which included the six pillars that support food sovereignty: (1) Focuses on food for people; (2) Values food providers; (3) Localizes food systems; (4) Puts control locally; (5) Builds knowledge and skills; and (6) Works with nature (Food Secure Canada 2012).Over time, the idea of food sovereignty has been acknowledged internationally as a foundation for people to produce and consume food locally.Although these concepts entail mutually overlapping ideas, food security differs from food sovereignty.Whereas food sovereignty concerns specific localities, food security concerns national or global communities.Shiaki Kondo (2018: 5) observed that "a difference in perspectives (exists) that food security tends to emphasize food production and distribution at the global level whereas food sovereignty respects decision making about food production at the local level".According to Gordillo and Mndez (2013), the concepts have a commonality in that they emphasize food production and the necessity to produce it to meet future demands.Their main issue is how to access food.They value nutritional quality and the necessity for the social protection of food production when temporary food crises occur.However, the two concepts differ greatly on the following points.The first difference is that food security only slightly addresses issues of who produces the food (e.g. if a multinational company with political and economic power produces it), to the degree that the food is secured; food sovereignty addresses power differences and who produces the food.The second difference relates to how the food is produced.Although food security does not emphasize the mode of food production, food sovereignty emphasizes how food is secured in small-scale units such as through non-industrial small-scale agriculture.Although many studies have examined food security or food sovereignty for people residing in developing countries, there have been few studies on food security and food sovereignty among many Indigenous people and communities around the globe.However, since the beginning of the 21st century, several studies of Indigenous North Americans
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".