Impacts of colonization on Indigenous food systems in Canada and the United States: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Indigenous populations in Canada and the United States (US) have maintained reciprocal relationships with nature, grounded in respect for and stewardship of the environment; however, disconnection from traditional food systems has generated a plethora of physical and mental health challenges for communities. Indigenous food sovereignty including control of lands were found to be factors contributing to these concerns. Therefore, our aim was to conduct a scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature to describe Indigenous disconnection from Indigenous food systems (IFS) in Canada and the US. METHODS: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-SR) and Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, SCOPUS, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Sociological Abstracts, and Bibliography of Native North Americans. Data was extracted from 41 studies and a narrative review completed based on study themes. RESULTS: The overarching theme identified in the included studies was the impact of colonization on IFS. Four sub-themes emerged as causes for Indigenous disconnection from traditional food systems, including: climate change; capitalism; legal change; and socio-cultural change. These sub-themes highlight the multiple ways in which colonization has impacted Indigenous food systems in Canada and the US and important areas for transformation. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to reconnect Indigenous knowledge and values systems with future food systems are essential for planetary health and sustainable development. Traditional knowledge sharing must foreground authentic Indigenous inclusion within policymaking.
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 | 0.012 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".