Partnerships and knowledge sharing for sustainable school food systems in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: School food program (SFP) delivery that uses a sustainable food systems approach has the potential to provide comprehensive health and nutrition benefits for students and communities. SFPs may be best supported through engagement with multiple sectors and partners, including agriculture, health, and education. This study aims to understand the readiness and priorities of partner organizations from across the food system to work towards sustainable SFP development in Saskatchewan (SK). Methods: A cross-sectional outreach and engagement survey was conducted across food system sectors and partners in February 2024 to inform the development of a SFP knowledge mobilization and partnership plan in SK. The survey was distributed to 321 pre-identified organizational partners across 10 food system sectors currently involved in, or with the potential to support, SFPs. Results: The survey had a 31% response rate (n=97/311). Overall, organizations prioritized improving childhood/youth nutrition, health and wellness andproviding nutrition and food-related education for students and staff.. Support for sustainable food systems more broadly, including environmental sustainability and supporting local jobs, food production, cultures, and traditions, were the least selected answers. Funding was also a gap with more than half of organizations(59%) currently supporting SFPs citing lack of funding as a challenge. Moving forward, 60% of organizations want to be informed about SFPs in SK, and 45% want to collaborate and lead towards improvement. Conclusion: The survey highlights the state of partnership support, priorities, and contributions to SK SFPs and helps build a case for increased SFP knowledge sharing, collaboration, funding, and advocacy. Improving the economic, social, and environmental sustainability of SFPs in SK requires additional funding, political leadership, continued engagement with food system organizations for multi-sector collaboration, and strengthening and harmonizing food systems policies and practices. A province-wide, universal, and sustainable SFP, managed in partnership, that respects local cultures, geographies, and concerns, and leaves the specific operations of each program within the control of adequately resourced local governing structures is a desirable step forward.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".