Reformist, progressive, radical: The case for an inclusive alliance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Scholars of food regimes and food movements have argued that the capacity of the contemporary food movement to achieve significant change is dependent upon the nature of the alliances formed by the progressive, food justice component of the broader array of food change organizations. They have urged alliances primarily with the more radical food sovereignty branch of the food movement. I argue that in the United States, which provides far more assistance to poor people as food assistance than as cash welfare, alliances with reformist food security organizations, and specifically the anti-hunger organizations focused on protecting and expanding federal food assistance, must be an essential part of any significant food justice agenda. These programs are essential to the survival of millions of Americans in the present while we are trying to build a better world for the future. Mobilized and informed public policy advocacy has an impressive track record of successful defense and incremental improvement of food programs. Several of these programs are entitlements that actually create justiciable rights. The collective procurement associated with school food and other public meal programs creates levers for fundamental food system change. And the network of federal, state and local anti-hunger organizations is potentially a portal through which people can enter the movement for a just food future. Food justice activists should include anti-hunger advocates among their allies and partners.
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 | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.101 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".