MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408804750 · doi:10.28968/cftt.v11i1.41793

Surveillant Metrics

2025· article· en· W4408804750 on OpenAlexaffabout
Merissa Daborn

Bibliographic record

VenueCatalyst Feminism Theory Technoscience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicOrganic Food and Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this research I interrogate how metrics of food insecurity rely on indexes of deprivation, of which Indigeneity is deemed an indicator of social deprivation. I engage the fields of critical Indigenous studies, critical whiteness studies, and Indigenous science, technology, and society. I argue that social deprivation indexes produce and surveil “deprived” geographic food zones according to metrics of whiteness. I make three central arguments through the empirical context of food insecurity interventions for Indigenous people in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. First, accounting for food insecurity through social deprivation indexes produces food insecurity because it does not accurately depict sources of food outside of what has been deemed appropriate (see: “healthy”) through logics of whiteness. Second, solely imagining food insecurity through logics of social deprivation results in interventions of whiteness, which overdetermines how inner-city urban space is designed, surveilled, and made carceral. Third, if food studies does not interrogate and make serious efforts to undo its own whiteness, it will continue to be deficient in its renderings and understanding of food geographies beyond whiteness.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0130.024
Open science0.0020.010
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCatalyst Feminism Theory TechnoscienceSame topicOrganic Food and AgricultureFrench-language works237,207