Programs Addressing Food Security for First Nations Peoples: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Access to food is a right that every individual must have to ensure a standard of living that is sufficient for maintaining good health and wellbeing. This review, developed and implemented by a team of First Nations and non-First Nations peoples, aimed to scope the literature on programs addressing food security for First Nations peoples in Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand, Canada, and the United States of America. Collectively, First Nations groups share continued traumas, disadvantages, and devastation brought upon them as a result of British colonisation. Despite the impacts of colonial conquest, the resilience of First Nations peoples continues through the fight for self-determination, sovereignty, equity, and equality. Three databases and grey literature were searched from 2010. Two reviewers completed screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal. Nine food security programs were included in this review. Five were from the United States of America and four from Canada, with no program from Australia or Aotearoa/New Zealand meeting the inclusion criteria. The programs that appear to be most suitable for addressing food security for First Nations peoples were participatory in design, had community governance, integrated cultural knowledge and food systems to increase the accessibility and availability of cultural foods, incorporated educational components, and utilized collaborations among various agencies. Findings showed that while it is important to address short-term emergency food relief, the aim should be sustainable food security through a longer-term system and policy change underpinned by co-designed research and evaluation.
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 | 0.018 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".