MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Understanding the Benefits of Local Food Procurement: Working with the Public and Private Sector

2025· article· en· W4408806942 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ben Tobias-Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInnovation and Socioeconomic Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcurementBusinessPrivate sectorPublic sectorFood sectorMarketingEconomicsEconomic growthEconomyAgricultureGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recently completed Serving up Local projects assessed opportunities to increase the purchase of local food in regionally managed long-term care homes in the Golden Horseshoe. These studies demonstrated that setting a local food purchasing priority is achievable, that purchasing data is readily available to participants and most importantly, that locally produced and/or processed foods do not increase food purchasing costs. This presentation will provide an update on the Serving Up Local KTT grant, highlighting new connections with the public and private sectors and efforts to increase local food procurement across the province. Through broad dissemination of the initial research methodology, the benefits of purchasing locally produced and/or processed foods will be discussed and new connections with long-term care homes, provincial jails and the mines in northern Ontario will be shared. Opportunities to further disseminate the research methodology and participate in KTT activities will also be discussed.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.553
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.007
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.175 · 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
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicInnovation and Socioeconomic DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207