“We Need to Live off the Land”: An Exploration and Conceptualization of Community-Based Indigenous Food Sovereignty Experiences and Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Indigenous food systems are sustainable in nature, many of these systems have been forcibly altered among Indigenous communities within Canada, as a consequence of colonization. Indigenous Food Sovereignty (IFS) movements work to counteract the dismantling of Indigenous food systems as well as the negative health impacts of environmental dispossession experienced by Indigenous communities. Through community-based participatory research methodologies and the utilization of Etuaptmumk, or two-eyed seeing, this research project explored community perspectives of IFS in Western Canada. Reflexive thematic analysis of qualitative data collected during a sharing circle held with community members identified the influence of Indigenous Knowledge and community support on three main aspects of Indigenous food sovereignty, including (1) environmental concerns, (2) sustainable practices and (3) a strong relationship with the land and waters. Through the sharing of stories and memories related to traditional foods and current sovereignty projects, community members identified concerns for their local ecosystem as well as a desire to preserve its natural state for generations to come. The strengthening of IFS movements is critical to the overall wellbeing of Indigenous communities within Canada. Support is needed for movements that honour relationships with traditional foods and recognize traditional lands and waters as necessary for healing and sustaining the health of Indigenous communities.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.070 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".