Community food assessments: combining community action and policy for a more just and sustainable food system
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper is concerned with the conception of a solution to food insecurity in Canada. I will begin by reviewing the two dominant approaches to food security, the antipoverty approach and the sustainable food systems approach. I will argue that in order to establish a food secure Canada, community action to increase food access and address concerns about production, distribution and consumption needs to happen in conjunction with policy action that seeks to reduce inequality and to promote a more just and sustainable food system. To examine this premise, I will discuss two Canadian Community Food Assessments, which will provide insight into how the food system is playing out in two communities, and what is being done to create a more balanced food system for local residents. I will also provide a discussion of the assessments' recommendations and how they see change coming about in the food system. What needs to happen in order to create food security in Canada? And with who and where are these changes to take place?
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 | 0.036 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".