MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403081105 · doi:10.1017/s136898002400140x

Development of the Local Food Systems Policy Index (Local Food-EPI+) tool and assessment process to benchmark the implementation of local government policies for creating healthy, equitable and environmentally sustainable food systems

2024· article· en· W4403081105 on OpenAlexaff
Oriana Ruffini, Chanel Relf, Davina Mann, Miranda R. Blake, Amy Carrad, Belinda Reeve, Liza Barbour, Lana Vanderlee, Stefanie Vandevijvere, Gary Sacks

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nutrition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersMedical Research CouncilDeakin UniversityLa Trobe UniversityNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Heart Foundation of Australia
KeywordsFood systemsBusinessLocal governmentSustainabilityBenchmarkingEquity (law)Sustainable agricultureSustainable developmentPromotion (chess)Food policyFood securityMarketingPublic administrationAgriculturePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: Local governments have an important role to play in creating healthy, equitable and environmentally sustainable food systems. This study aimed to develop and pilot a tool and process for local governments in Australia to benchmark their policies for creating healthy, equitable and environmentally sustainable food systems. Design: The Healthy Food Environment Policy Index (Food-EPI), developed in 2013 for national governments, was tailored to develop the Local Food Systems Policy Index (Local Food-EPI+) tool for local governments. To incorporate environmental sustainability and the local government context, this process involved a literature review and collaboration with an international and domestic expert advisory committee (n 35) and local government officials. Setting: Local governments. Results: The tool consists of sixty-one indicators across ten food policy domains (weighted based on relative importance): leadership; governance; funding and resources; monitoring and intelligence; food production and supply chain; food promotion; food provision and retail in public facilities and spaces; supermarkets and food sources in the community; food waste reuse, redistribution and reduction; and support for communities. Pilot implementation of the tool in one local government demonstrated that the assessment process was feasible and likely to be helpful in guiding policy implementation. Conclusion: The Local Food-EPI+ tool and assessment process offer a comprehensive mechanism to assist local governments in benchmarking their actions to improve the healthiness, equity and environmental sustainability of food systems and prioritise action areas. Broad use of this tool will identify and promote leading practices, increase accountability for action and build capacity and collaborations.

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)0.121
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.166
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.641

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1210.166
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0180.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NutritionSame topicOrganic Food and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207