Gardening from the ground up: a review of grassroots governance and management of domestic gardening in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian urban agriculture movement marks a change in urban land-use policies that includes a greater diversity of gardeners as views on sustainable agriculture promotes local food movements. Benefits of urban agriculture are well documented in the social science, environmental and health literature. Much of the literature on urban food-gardens in Canada focuses on community gardens and school gardens and gardening programmes, while there has been little attempt to gather and synthesise this research with a focus on the governance and management of grassroots urban agri-food organisations. We have undertaken through a systematic scoping review to reveal the extent of the current body of knowledge surrounding urban grassroots agri-food organisations in Canada, as well as governance and management paradigms and challenges. Of the Canadian studies, 15 were qualitative case studies (surveys, observations, etc.), 11 were exploration/analysis papers (analysis of primary research collected elsewhere), one was a literature review and 1 was a quantitative analysis. Significant challenges in grassroots food-gardening are explored. We found that for greater success of urban agriculture, municipal policymakers need to intentionally and radically shift policy to plan for and integrate urban agriculture networks into the urban environment without taking over the networks themselves. We also find that there is a lack of broad research into the influence of gender dynamics on the organisation and management of urban agriculture or community gardens.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.034 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".