The good, the bad, and the ugly of COP26: A conversation with two food sovereignty activists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 26th UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) COP (Conference of Parties) took place in Glasgow, Scotland in November 2021 amidst intersecting global crises. The rising number and intensity of unprecedented extreme weather events in many countries, increased knowledge about industrial agriculture’s significant emission contributions to the climate crisis, and the vulnerability of the global food system in the wake of COVID-19 shocks should have positioned food and agriculture as priority items on the agenda. Yet, agriculture and food systems played only a minor role in COP26 negotiations, and vaccine apartheid limited the presence of the food sovereignty movement and broader grassroots voices in Glasgow. Corporate co-optation and flagrant greenwashing via net zero and false solution narratives dominated, yielding watered-down outcomes instead of the bold actions needed to tackle the climate crisis. In this report from the field, two food sovereignty activists dissect the accessibility of the official COP26 spaces and demonstrate how the negotiations failed to meaningfully integrate grassroots demands related to ecologically and socially just food and agriculture policy. They also reflect on their experiences in civil society-led spaces that fostered social movement building outside the doors of the official UNFCCC conference. It was in these interactions that activists wove threads of hope across sectors, social groups, and movements seeking climate justice.
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 | 0.019 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.081 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".