Farmers, foodies and First Nations: getting to food sovereignty in Canada?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ideals of food security and, to a lesser extent, food sovereignty, have taken tangible and practical form only relatively recently in Alberta, Canada ( Growing Food Security in Alberta, n.d .). Their advocates continue to seek methods for gaining legitimacy and traction in a province whose economy and provincial identity are heavily reliant on export-oriented, industrial agriculture. This chapter analyses the potential to employ a food-sovereignty discourse for strategic coalition-building between anti-poverty and pro-food security groups and other similarly aligned organizations and individuals in the City of Lethbridge in Southern Alberta. It asks if it is possible, in the spirit of Gibson-Graham ( 2006 ), to use food sovereignty to create a new discursive frame for food production and consumption, poverty and the local economy, as well as a way to enhance the interconnectivity of people in and around Lethbridge. This process may contribute to the creation of new community subjects with transformed and transforming knowledges, capacities, and values. I argue that a locally embedded food sovereignty discourse has the potential to be used to coalesce around and unify disparate community stakeholders and programs to foster a flexible and pragmatic alternative food system and community-oriented economy in Lethbridge. However, there are a number of challenges to implementing a locally situated food sovereignty in this region, specifically related to the power and perceived inevitability of the (neo)liberal state, that must be elaborated upon.
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 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".