Feeding Our Affinities: Looking for Alternatives to Food Security in a World of Unsustainable Global Agribusiness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This focus of this undergraduate thesis is how alternatives to industrialized agriculture are necessary given that current global agribusiness is unsustainable and susceptible to collapse. My presentation will explore the social logic of alternative forms of food security and how the emerging interrelationships affect the development of these alternatives. The presentation begins with a brief description of how global agribusiness functions and why it is unsustainable. In an effort of making my research as relevant to this issue as possible, I construct a theoretical base which underscores the commonalities between food security and relevant social and political theory. The rest of my presentation focuses on three alternative forms of food security: smallscale markets, urban agriculture and intentional communities. This continuum is a way of arranging the aforementioned alternatives into a way in which the relationships between the alternatives can be comprehensively studied in an accessible manner. Throughout this part of the presentation, I identify some of the practices and events in both the Kingston area and academic literature which highlight the currency of my theoretical base and arguments. Smallscale markets are introduced as a progressive involution from global agribusiness towards more sustainable forms of food security. Urban agriculture is embodied in the ways individuals and groups attempt to grow their food within seemingly uninviting urban environments, occurring through three interrelated practices: household gardening, community gardening and guerrilla gardening. The last of the explored alternatives, intentional communities, are developed as selfsustaining means of independence from outside forces.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".