MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206912422 · doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.762482

Beyond GDP: Lessons for Redefining Progress in Canadian Food System Policy

2022· article· en· W4206912422 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Naomi Robert, Kent Mullinix

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Communication · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGross domestic productFood systemsPolitical scienceResearch policyPolicy developmentEmbodied cognitionEconomic growthPublic economicsEconomicsFood securityGeographyPublic administrationAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gross Domestic Product (GDP), while initially conceived to measure economic activity, is now the most widely used indicator for societal progress and wellbeing. Its contemporary (mis)use has been documented and discussed in 'Beyond GDP' research. This mini-review brings a food systems lens to Beyond GDP research by providing an overview of the limitations of GDP as an indicator of wellbeing, and by illustrating examples of how these are embodied in Canadian food system policy. We offer a brief summary of some established and emerging areas of research dedicated to improving assessments of societal wellbeing in policy development. We highlight connections between Beyond GDP research and advocacy for food system policy reform and suggest that strengthening connections between the two areas of research and advocacy can help center societal wellbeing within food system policy research and development in Canada.

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)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.759
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.014
Science and technology studies0.0120.014
Scholarly communication0.0150.009
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0050.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in CommunicationSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207