A Food Sovereignty Approach to Localization in International Solidarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Renewed calls for localization and the “decolonization of aid” are raising questions about whose knowledge and control are privileged. This article argues that in order to support local decision-making on food systems and agricultural aid, international solidarity work should look towards food sovereignty and agroecology approaches. Food sovereignty and agroecology, informed by feminist approaches, can provide important lessons for localization as they prioritize local knowledge and decision-making, and are based on social justice principles. They also provide alternatives to the problematic concept of “development”, particularly the agro-industrial development model which contributes to environmental and health crises, corporate concentration, colonialism and inequality. An example of the trajectory of the NGO SeedChange is provided to help illustrate how food sovereignty can: (1) provide an alternative to problematic development concepts, and (2) encourage localization and greater priority to global South perspectives. While acknowledging that there exist contradictions and challenges to shared decision-making, learning from partners in the global South working for seed and food sovereignty has been crucial to shaping the organization’s programs and policy advocacy.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".