MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324026658 · doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v10i1.567

“Dismantling the structures and sites that create unequal access to food:”

2023· article· en· W4324026658 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Paul Taylor, Elaine Power

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsPovertyIndigenousEconomic JusticeSociologyLiving wagePolitical scienceManagementLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the summer of 2019, Elaine Power, Professor in the School of Kinesiology & Health Studies at Queen’s University, interviewed Paul Taylor for a research project on community food programs. Paul, a Black man, is the Executive Director of FoodShare Toronto and an anti-poverty activist. In 2020, Paul was named one of Toronto Life’s 50 Most Influential Torontonians, was awarded the Top 40 under 40 in Canada, and voted Best Activist by the readers of Now Magazine. In this interview, Paul explains his philosophy of leadership, his understanding of food justice, and the ways that non-profit organizations can contribute more meaningfully to food justice. Paul understands food insecurity as a lack of income, an issue disproportionately affecting Black, Indigenous and people of colour. Therefore, the best solution to food insecurity is a decent-paying job. Non-profits concerned about food justice must pay living wages, and close the gap between the highest and lowest paid employees. They must also listen to their clients and take their advice. Paul also explains how his background growing up poor and hungry in Toronto was his best education for his current position at FoodShare Toronto.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.660
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0250.063
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.405
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.034 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentationSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207