Fostering food preservation practice: Lessons from a community train-the-trainer program on Canada's west coast
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Local food systems programs in Canada's rural and remote communities support residents to improve their access to healthy food by strengthening various social practices within the system. Designing programs to strengthen social practices can help address food insecurity by providing a support structure where people can build competencies and access materials necessary to engage in practices like food preservation, and make meanings that will encourage them to sustain their engagement. The elements needed for successfully establishing a social practice–competencies, materials, and meanings–must be present. Unfortunately, food preservation programs in Canada's local food systems have not fully embedded structures to bring all three elements of social practice together or undertake a participant-focused program assessment. Consequently, we do not know the potential of local food preservation to meet peoples' various needs or the challenges that program participants experience practicing food preservation. This paper uses a social practice framework to determine the extent to which a community food preservation program on Canada's west coast strengthened the three elements of social practice. Findings from interviews show that in line with the paper's three objectives, participants of a community train-the-trainer program (1) built and shared food preservation competencies, (2) accessed materials to practice food preservation, and (3) formed meanings to support their continuous engagement in food preservation. The paper shows how a social practice framework can support a participant-focused program evaluation and provide a practical and straightforward tool for assessing food systems programs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".