Exploring the 'interface' between traditional and alternative food systems.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the interface' between First Nations traditional food systems and agricultural alternative food systems. Motivated by concerns about health, food security, ecological integrity and cultural heritage, both First Nations peoples and local food activists are engaging in activities, programs and policy-making to address food-related issues, yet for different reasons. In light of rising health concerns, contaminated resources and a declining land-base, First Nations peoples are recovering and revitalizing their traditional food systems. Concurrently, food localism has emerged as an alternative to the dominant industrial model of agricultural production. These two distinct food systems operate on a primarily local scale and promote healthy lifestyles and ecosystems by allowing citizens to exert greater control over the accessibility, safety and nutritive value of their food. This study aims to characterize the relationship between traditional and alternative food systems through semi-structured interviews with key informants and good activists involved or knowledgeable with both food systems. The interviews revealed parallels between the two systems on many issues, including methods of acquiring or producing food, language used and other defining qualities, and objectives relating to health and the environment however, differences relating to culture, history and identity were stressed repeatedly. Through examples, the interface was articulated as a collaboration, interaction or overlap between the two systems. When the interface took the form of collaborations or interactions, the boundaries between the two food systems were clearly defined. When it represented an overlap or shared space, those boundaries were fuzzy and there was a sense of concern both to underline the distinctions between the two systems and to highlight their parallels. As two food systems based around proximity, they are bound to share other qualities while remaining distinctly different. While there is a
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".