MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205562233 · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.762083

An Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis Examining the Complexities of Access to Wild Game and Fish for Urban Indigenous Women in Northwestern Ontario

2022· article· en· W4205562233 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Breanna Phillipps, Kelly Skinner, Barbara Parker, Hannah Tait Neufeld

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Communication · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsIndigenousFood securityFood sovereigntyPolitical scienceGeographyFood systemsEconomic growthEcologyAgricultureEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The destruction of Indigenous food systems is a direct consequence of the settler-colonial project within Canada and has led to decreasing access to Indigenous foods, disproportionate rates of food insecurity and disconnection from Indigenous food systems and environments. We interviewed Indigenous women, non-Indigenous staff of Indigenous-serving organizations, and policymakers (i.e., those who develop, interpret, or implement wild food policy) to explore how the policy context has impacted Indigenous women and their communities’ experiences of accessing Indigenous foods in urban northwestern Ontario. We applied an Intersectionality-Based Policy Analysis (IBPA) Framework to shape our research questions and guide the thematic analysis of the data. We found that stakeholder groups had differing understandings of the issue of accessing wild foods and Indigenous food security and their actions either supported or disrupted efforts for access to wild food to promote food security or Indigenous Food Sovereignty. Policymakers cited necessary barriers to promote food safety and support conservation of wildlife. Staff of Indigenous-serving organizations approached the issue with consideration of both Western and Indigenous worldviews, while Indigenous women spoke about the ongoing impacts of colonial policy and government control over their lands and territories. The main policy areas discussed included residential school policy, food regulation, and natural resource regulation. We also investigated community-level strategies for improvement, such as a wild game license. Throughout, we tied the colonial control over ‘wildlife’ and the Western food safety discourse, with infringements on Indigenous Food Sovereignty, experiences of racism in food settings and on the land, as well as with broad control over Indigenous sovereignty in Ontario. This work contributes to an increased understanding of how Western discourses about health, food, and the environment are perpetuated through systemic racism in government policy and reiterated through policymakers' views and interpretations or actions. Government institutions must develop culturally safe partnerships with Indigenous leaders and organizations to facilitate a transfer of power that can support Indigenous Food Sovereignty.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0170.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in CommunicationSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207