The evolution of Haudenosaunee food guidance: Building capacity toward the sustainability of local environments in the community of Six Nations of the Grand River
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The emerging literature on the Indigenous food movement identifies community involvement, family-centred food education and re-establishing a relationship with the land as essential to restoring sustainable food systems, land and water access. These processes of reclamation have similarly evolved through collaborative community processes and guiding practices described in this chapter that have taken place in the community of Six Nations of the Grand River. The evolution of social movements and relationships to reinforce patterns of support through the transference of knowledge has led to the “guidance” that continues to adjust and change. This unique form of guidance is not in the form of a westernized practice of creating formalized lists meant for general distribution with the intent of controlling food-based practices. In the community of Six Nations, guidance and practice are informed and conveyed by people and supported through established networks and relationships. This type of guidance, therefore, is living and continues to evolve. As such it is not conveyed in such a prescriptive manner using lists and absolute categories. The Haudenosaunee food guide illustrated in Figure 2 is based on collective knowledge and land-based practices that are meant to be shared, adapted and applied by all members of the community. It is therefore not a static form of guidance as the foods and their connections to land and people evolve as reciprocal relationships.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".