Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Literature abounds on the role of community kitchens and gardens as strategies to foster food security and healthy lifestyles. But what are their unique contributions among Francophone and Francophile minority communities in Canada? Objectives: This case study aimed to explore the benefits of a community kitchen and garden developed by and for the Francophone and Francophile minority living in St. John's, Newfoundland. It also aimed to identify key facilitators to their success.Methods: An ethnographic approach from September 2015 to July 2016 including participant observation and 15 in-depth semi-structured interviews with coordinators and participants (men n=2, women n=13, Francophones n=12 and Francophiles n=3) was used. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes. Results: The community kitchen and garden play a key role in the development and vitality of the Francophone and Francophile community of St. Johnu2019s. In addition to acquiring cooking and gardening knowledge, skills, self-confidence, and pride, these activities enable participants to assert their cultural identity and improve their knowledge of French language and Francophone cultures. They contribute to cultural continuity and foster a sense of community belonging, and cultural and linguistic well-being. Leadership, conviviality, the collective approach, connection to identity, exchanges between Francophones and Francophiles, and the use of French were key facilitators enabling benefits. Conclusion: Findings highlight the importance of considering both language and culture, as vital factors to participation and benefits gained. Results call for an expanded understanding of how community kitchens and gardens can contribute to individual and community well-being among other minority communities in Canada.Significance to the field: Few studies have addressed how these health promotion activities can be used to vitalize minority communities in Canada and foster their cultural and linguistic well-being. This study makes recommendations, which can be helpful to both researchers and practitioners working with Francophone and Francophile minorities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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".