“This is Part of Everything that is Wrong with the World” – A Comparative Analysis of Sustainability Framing in Social Media Discussions About Food in Five Countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current western food systems are attested to be clearly unsustainable – but are people aware of this in their everyday life as they deal with the food offerings of their preferred supermarkets? To discover which links people actually make between the ecological, economical, and social impacts of the food systems and their personal food choices, our comparative, qualitative content analysis looks at everyday discussions on Facebook pages of supermarket chains in Canada, Germany, United Kingdom, United States, and South Africa (n = 1.775 comments). Our findings reveal that the term “sustainability” is never explicitly mentioned. Yet, people in UK and Germany, which rank high on the Environmental Performance Index (EPI), do link food closely to a number of very concrete sustainability issues (e.g. CO2-emissions, biodiversity, plastic waste) and intra-generational justice (e.g. fair wages). They discuss a broad variety of problems, even though these discussions do not get political (e.g. promoting political activism, petitions, or buycotts). In the samples from Canada and the US, countries which rate lower on the Environmental Performance Index, sustainability issues and food get rarely linked. The findings indicate that higher ambitions in sustainable development on a policy level go hand in hand with higher awareness in everyday life discussions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it