Shaping circular futures: The role of future-making practices in the transition to circular food systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visions of circular food systems have become increasingly central to debates about sustainability, guiding strategies to reduce waste and regenerate resources. Among the at times conflicting visions that diverge in values and priorities, the transition toward circular food systems remains uncertain. We examine how everyday future-making practices reconfigure relations with waste and shape circular transitions in Switzerland. Drawing on Social Practice Theory and the concept of transformativity, we analyze how actors perform practices that reshape how waste is encountered, valued, and integrated into circular material flows in everyday life. Based on qualitative fieldwork conducted in 2023 with four cases from the Swiss food system including fertilizer production from urine, urban aquaponics, food waste redistribution, and biodynamic CSA farming, we show how different practices render alternative waste values tangible and engage people in circular futures-in-the-making through habitual, planned, and experimental modes of practices. In doing so, we highlight the everyday as a key site where contested circularity visions are negotiated, adapted, and implemented.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".