MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321482602 · doi:10.5304/jafscd.2023.122.005

Civil society engagement in food systems governance in Canada: Experiences, gaps, and possibilities

2023· article· en· W4321482602 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Charles Z. Levkoe, Peter Andrée, Patricia Ballamingie, Kirsti Tasala, Amanda Wilson, Monika Korzun

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community Development · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversitySaint Paul UniversityLakehead University
FundersMinistry of Education, IndiaMitacs
KeywordsCorporate governanceCivil societyCitizen journalismFood systemsPolitical scienceDemocracyFood policyParticipatory action researchPublic relationsSociologyFood securityPublic administrationPoliticsBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Civil society organizations (CSOs) commonly expe­rience food systems governance as imposed by governments from the top down and as unduly influenced by a small group of private sector actors that hold disproportionate power. This uneven influence significantly impacts the activities and relationships that determine the nature and orienta­tion of food systems. In contrast, some CSOs have sought to establish participatory governance struc­tures that are more democratic, accessible, collabo­rative, and rooted in social and environmental justice. Our research seeks to better understand the experiences of CSOs across the food systems gov­ernance landscape and critically analyze the suc­cesses, challenges, and future opportunities for establishing collaborative governance processes with the goal of building healthier, sustainable, and more equitable food systems. This paper presents findings from a survey of CSOs in Canada to iden­tify who is involved in this work, key policy priori­ties, and opportunities and limitations experienced. Following the survey, we conducted interviews with a broad cross-section of CSO representatives to deepen our understanding of experiences engag­ing with food systems governance. Our findings suggest that what food systems governance is, how it is experienced, and what more participatory structures might look like are part of an emergent and contested debate. We argue for increased scholarly attention to the ways that proponents of place-based initiatives engage in participatory approaches to food systems governance, examining both current and future possibilities. We conclude by identifying five key gaps in food systems gov­ernance that require additional focus and study: (1) Describing the myriad meanings of participa­tory food systems governance; (2) Learning from food movement histories; (3) Deepening meaning­ful Indigenous-settler relationships; (4) Addressing food systems labor issues; and (5) Considering par­ticipatory food systems governance in the context of COVID-19.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0520.027
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community DevelopmentSame topicAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactFrench-language works237,207