Barriers and supports to traditional food access in Mi’kma’ki (Nova Scotia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada is a signatory nation on international covenants, conventions, and declarations supporting the human right to food, but has not granted constitutional protection thereof. Failure to uphold the right to food contributes to unacceptably high levels of food insecurity that vary geographically and demographically, undermines health, and creates structural obstacles to food system sustainability. It is well recognized that Indigenous populations in Canada face disproportionately high rates of food insecurity compared to non-Indigenous people, and little attention is paid to the Indigenous conceptions of food security, including access to traditional food systems. The purpose of this research was to better understand the importance of, as well as barriers and supports that exist in accessing traditional food for Indigenous Peoples in Nova Scotia. Two focus groups were held with individuals who identify as Indigenous (n=16), one for those who live within a First Nations community and one for those who live outside of a First Nations community, in Nova Scotia. Focus groups were held in a talking circle format to facilitate discussion on traditional food access. Focus groups were transcribed and analyzed using the Medicine Wheel Evaluation Framework to understand in a culturally relevant way, how traditional foods impact Indigenous Nova Scotians’ health. Bronfenbrenner’s Social Ecological Model was used to locate barriers and supports to traditional food. Supports identified were community engagement, consultations and partnerships, and strength of cultural values. Barriers included knowledge transmission, lack of community, land access, cost, programs and policies, and identity loss. Nuances specific to each community are discussed. Both supports and challenges exist for traditional food access in Nova Scotia; however, barriers outweighed supports in both number and magnitude. Stronger community and political partnerships, as well as consultations with Indigenous Peoples by public and private sector developers are necessary to develop upstream solutions to traditional food access.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".