MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413876430 · doi:10.1177/11771801251369560

Agroecological transition or <i>agroecological repossession</i> ? Resurgence of traditional food culture in the Tremembé da Barra do Mundaú

2025· article· en· W4413876430 on OpenAlexafffund
Lauriane Tremembé, Mateus Tremembé, Evan Bowness

Bibliographic record

VenueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaEuropean Commission
KeywordsAgroecologyGeographyAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceAgricultureArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Industrial food systems, as extensions of colonial dispossession, are destroying the planet. Agroecology is increasingly promoted as a response, framed as an ecological farming practice, a grassroots movement, and an academic field. Yet, much agroecological knowledge remains embedded in the same Western institutions and epistemologies that underpin industrial agriculture. As such, agroecological science can reproduce patterns of knowledge extraction and exploitation. Drawing on environmental repossession , which describes how Indigenous communities restore relationships with land, and a framework for ethical engagement between Indigenous and Western sciences, we reframe agroecological transitions as agroecological repossessions. This reframing centers the resurgence of traditional foodways and resituates innovations in ecological agriculture within the continuity of ancestral land relations. Through an example from the Tremembé da Barra do Mundaú (an Indigenous community in Ceará, Brazil), we show how reframing agroecological transitions this way opens the possibility of reclaiming agroecological science itself.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlterNative An International Journal of Indigenous PeoplesSame topicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207