MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281395988 · doi:10.5304/jafscd.2022.113.012

COVID-19, a changing food-security landscape, and food movements: Findings from a literature scan in Canada

2022· article· en· W4281395988 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kristen Lowitt, Joyce Slater, Zoe E. Davidson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community Development · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood securityFood systemsGrey literatureCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SustainabilityPolitical scienceEquity (law)Key (lock)BusinessGeographyAgricultureComputer securityEcologyComputer scienceLawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research brief presents results from a scan of peer-reviewed and grey literature published from March 2020 to the end of August 2021 looking at the impacts of COVID-19 on food security in Canada. The purpose of this literature scan is to look at how the national food-security landscape has shifted due to the pandemic and to analyze what these changes mean for civil society­–led food movements working on the ground to enhance food systems sustainability and equity. This brief presents key findings from the literature scan focus­ing on food-security policy, programming, and funding; food security for individuals, house­holds, and vulnerable populations; and food sys­tems. We then draw on our collective experi­ences as food scholars and activists to discuss the impli­cations of these findings for food movement organizing. Here, we focus on networks, policy advocacy, and local food systems as key considera­tions for food movements in a changing food-security landscape.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0170.057
Science and technology studies0.0130.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.003
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.063
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community DevelopmentSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207