Elements of Successful Food Sovereignty Interventions within Indigenous Communities in the United States and Canada: a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite inherent resiliency and strengths, Indigenous Peoples in the United States (US) and Canada have been impacted by colonialism that has led to a loss of land, culture, and identity. Loss of land in particular has had substantial impacts on Indigenous food system practices. Indigenous food sovereignty (IFS) has been determined to be a mechanism for Indigenous communities to build their capacity to address food insecurity. A systematic review methodology was therefore engaged to gather and analyze the currently published literature to date to identify common elements of successful IFS interventions within Indigenous communities in the US and Canada. We carried out a systematic search in the following electronic databases: Academic Search Premier, Agricola, PubMed, CINAHL Complete, Indigenous Studies Portal, the Native Health Database, SocIndex, PsycInfo, and Google Scholar. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used to apply a methodologic quality score to the included articles. We used a two-stage process for article selection with two independent reviewers screening the titles and abstracts of articles identified. Relevant databases were initially searched up to June, 2022, with an updated search occurring in January, 2023. Content analysis was carried out on the included articles using qualitative analysis software. Twenty articles met the inclusion criteria of the review. Four main categories of successful elements within IFS interventions were identified including: (1) transmission of knowledge and skills within the community through workshops, (2) cultural connectedness through cultivation practices, (3) preparation and consumption of traditional foods through community programs, and, (4) community-based partnerships and collaborations. An IFS approach has led to the development of several intervention strategies within Indigenous communities, which have been highlighted in this review. The successful elements identified in this review may serve to support future food sovereignty-related programmatic and intervention development within Indigenous communities. PROSPERO (#: CRD42022342100)
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 | 0.020 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".