Colonial approaches in Canadian national food policy development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Government of Canada has claimed that the relationship with Indigenous peoples, that of First Nations, Inuit and Métis people, is their most important relationship. The rhetoric around reconciliation and Indigenous-Crown relationships are a major directive within federal policy. Using the theoretical framework of discursive institutionalism, this journal article looks at how this approach has, or has not, shaped the development of a national food policy. Discursive institutionalism is critical to understanding the complex relationships and perspectives that are embedded within the development of national food policies. Looking at the reports, discourse, and actions of the federal government, this article highlights how Indigenous people continue to be seen as stakeholders, as opposed to partners in nation-to-nation relationships. This paper analyzing the government’s approach to food policy stresses that the government recognizes the importance of having a national food policy, as well as acknowledging that Indigenous people need to be a part of the process. Indigenous peoples are distinct peoples with inherent rights that must been recognized and supported by the Crown, and that understanding needs to be a part of all policies and laws that can impact Indigenous peoples and communities.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".