Possibilities for decolonizing food planning: Addressing ontological dominance, affective and relational dispositions, and (re)imagining just food futures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we invite readers to engage with different possibilities for relating to the world and to food by imagining and enacting future food systems rooted in relational ontologies and interrupting the ontological dominance of settler-colonial food systems. We outline a framework that supports individuals, communities, and organizations to unlearn and disinvest from a Eurocentric agrifood paradigm that requires violence and oppression, and employs neoliberal, racist, patriarchal, capitalist logics. The framework is intended to provide language and concepts that may support food system actors to engage with critiques of colonialism, and their own complicities in maintaining contemporary food systems and structures. We advance promising pathways to creating relational communities of respect, care, accountability, and reciprocity These pathways are vital to healing intergenerational trauma, embodying reciprocal forms of mutual aid, unlearning dominant ontological and epistemological foundations, and imagining and enacting alternative food system configurations and relationships to food, nature, and other-than human beings in pursuit of just food futures and food sovereignties.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".