“Good healthy food for all”: Examining FoodShare Toronto´'s approach to critical food guidance through a reflexivity lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By building community-based food systems informed by transformative ideologies and principles, Community-Based Food Organisation (CBFOs) can be understood as agents of critical food guidance from the bottom-up. This paper focuses on the notion of reflexivity as pivotal to the implementation of critical food guidance in CBFOs. Reflexivity is defined as the capacity of actors and organisations to establish as well as to self-reflect upon key food system principles and scale out these principles across communities. To examine reflexivity and its connection to critical food guidance, this paper retraces the story of FoodShare Toronto, a CBFO whose core mission is to foster “good healthy food for all”. Going through different stages of its life-course, this paper highlights the ways in which this organisation reframes core values and principle through time and how it attempts to scale out these principles through partnerships and programs. Learning from FoodShare´s trajectory, this paper highlights key lessons on how reflexivity can strengthen the capacity of food organisations to be vehicles for emancipatory and transformative food guidance.
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 | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.157 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".