Food Policy Councils: A 20—Year Scoping Review (1999–2019)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proliferation of food policy councils (FPCs) in the past two decades has been accompanied by increasing academic interest and a growing number of research studies. Given the rapid interest and growth in the number of FPCs, their expanding geographic distribution, and the research on their activities, there is a need to assess the current state of knowledge on FPCs, gaps in that knowledge, and directions for future research. To address this need, we undertook a scoping review of the scholarly literature published on FPCs over the past two decades. The review identified four main themes in the FPC research—(1) Activities of FPCs; (2) Organizational dimensions; (3) Challenges; and, (4) Facilitators. We also note a significant sub-theme related to equity and diversity, race and class representation in FPCs. These themes frame a growing body of knowledge on FPCs along with key gaps in the current body of literature, which may help to direct research on these organizations for those interested in approaches to food systems change and cross-sectoral collaborative approaches to social-ecological governance.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".