"It wasn't built for us": The possibility of Indigenous food sovereignty in settler colonial food bureaucracies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the extent to which Indigenous-led food systems and sovereignty goals, frameworks, and priorities are recognized, affirmed, and supported within the agri-food public sector. For this study, we focus on the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), but the findings and analysis have implications for settler-Indigenous relations more broadly. First, we situate Indigenous food systems and sovereignties within the context of agri-food bureaucracies in Canada. We then present the research design, which involved 27 interviews with people working within or collaborating with OMAFRA on issues related to agricultural land use, programming, and development, and Indigenous relations and food systems. The findings are categorized into five themes: differing needs, visions, and priorities; land access, conversion, and health; representation; consultation and consent in agri-food programming; capacity building. The findings reveal major gaps in Indigenous representation, leadership, and control, and an absence of Indigenous-led planning and decision-making in the agri-food public sector. The findings further show that non-Indigenous people lack crucial knowledge concerning treaties and Indigenous relationships to land and stewardship, which creates ongoing and significant barriers to reconciliation. We close by discussing key barriers and opportunities for supporting Indigenous food system and sovereignty programming and ways forward for deepening settler knowledge of Indigenous issues and experiences. The perspectives shared in this study are intended to provide food system research, planning, policy, and practice with insights in order to begin to address structural injustices and better support Indigenous food sovereignty.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".