Gardening practices in Alaska build on traditional food system foundations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based food cultivation by and for rural Alaskans has never been stronger. Rural gardeners, many Indigenous, provide their families and communities with affordable access to high-quality fruits and vegetables and other locally grown foods. Despite these emerging trends, there is sparse examination of gardening as a complementary, diversification, or adaptation strategy in wild food-centered systems and the interchange of values and worldviews among practices. Findings from interviews and surveys in Dillingham, Alaska, and interviews with community-focused gardens throughout the state, inform our research questions about the role of gardening in rural Alaska and the links between food cultivation practices and wild food traditions. In this study we find that home gardeners are essential pillars of food sovereignty and security in their communities, providing both gardened foods and high volumes and more diversity of wild foods. Gardening households increase the diversity of shared food resources in the community and serve as sinks of gardening knowledge and supplies for other community members. Traditional food practices and ethics are interwoven into gardening and have become part of annual food rounds and celebrations. Locally, cultivated foods are often described as a complement to age-old foodways that draw on histories and values connected to Indigenous agriculture and horticulture in the United States and Canada. Policies, practices, and programming of food and nutrition security and food sovereignty must consider the holistic food system and strategies that communities desire and invest in.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".