Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rainbow Community Garden is a place for new immigrant and refugee families in Winnipeg to grow their own food. Using the Rainbow Community Garden as a case study, this paper contributes to ongoing discussions about community gardening by applying an anthropological lens to the multilayered meanings of agriculture in urban environments. This paper is focused on the benefits and challenges of community gardening in the context of new immigrant and refugee experiences. Through a literature review and interviews with gardeners, the role of food and community gardens as a means of facilitating cross cultural interactions, providing culturally appropriate food for new immigrants and refugees, and expressing cultural identity is brought into emphasis. I draw on Strunk and Richardson’s (2019) concepts of the material, imagined, and community’s garden, to reflect on the different ways in which the community garden is used and experienced by immigrant and refugee gardeners. The main conclusion of this research is that, in the context of new immigrant and refugee participation in community gardening, a garden is not only the physical soil, vegetables, and flowers, but also an important place for practicing one’s culture and for engaging in meaningful cross cultural interaction that is beneficial in adjusting to a new life in Canada.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".