Viewpoint: The case for a six-dimensional food security framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The definition of food security has evolved and changed over the past 50 years, including the introduction of the four commonly cited pillars of food security: availability, access, utilization, and stability, which have been important in shaping policy. In this article, we make the case that it is time for a formal update to our definition of food security to include two additional dimensions proposed by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition: agency and sustainability. We show that the impact of widening food system inequalities and growing awareness of the intricate connections between ecological systems and food systems highlight the importance of these additional dimensions to the concept. We further outline the ways in which international policy guidance on the right to food already implies both agency and sustainability alongside the more established four pillars, making it a logical next step to adopt a six dimensional framework for food security in both policy and scholarly settings. We also show that advances have already been made with respect to providing measurements of agency and sustainability as they relate to food insecurity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.025 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".