MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400267945 · doi:10.5304/jafscd.2024.133.032

Challenging agricultural norms and diversifying actors: Building transformative public policy for equitable food systems

2024· article· en· W4400267945 on OpenAlexaff
Johanna Wilkes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransformative learningCorporate governanceLegitimacyPolitical sciencePublic policyAction (physics)Science policyPublic relationsSociologyPublic administrationEconomicsManagementPoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food systems governance regimes have long been spaces of “thick legitimacy” (Montenegro de Wit & Iles, 2016), where embedded norms benefit pro­duc­tivist agricultural practices. Within governance regimes, the science-policy interface and the scien­tists who occupy this space are integral in today’s public policy processes. Often treated as objective science, technical disciplines have become a power­ful source of legitimatizing in decision making. Without the contextualization of lived experience or diverse ways of knowing, these siloed spaces can lead policymakers towards an action bias (e.g., a rush to short-term solutions) that neglects the underlying causes and concerns of our current crises. Current governance arrangements in the science-policy interface demonstrate the bias toward technical science (e.g. economics) and short-term solutions. However, by challenging productivist agriculture norms reformed public policy processes may shift from a space of repres­sion to one of possibility. This reform can happen through investigatiing dominant actor coalitions and identifying tools to reconfigure these power arrangements. Public policy theory, such as the advocacy coalition framework (ACF), helps organ­ize relations within current agricultural policy arenas. The work of practitioners and other disci­plines offer tools that can support transformative action by food systems advocates in the pursuit of changing the way public policy is made. In part, understanding how power is organized and who may influence policy processes is critical to change. This reflective essay ends with tools and strategies for those wishing to engage governments in this shift. The proposed tools and strategies focus on how people (e.g. policy champions), processes (e.g. policy leverage points), and partnerships (e.g. ally­ship) generate ways in which advocates can, and do, engage governments in transformative change.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.088
Scholarly communication0.0240.029
Open science0.0040.020
Research integrity0.0100.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.193 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community DevelopmentSame topicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207