Agroecological transition or <i>agroecological repossession</i> ? Resurgence of traditional food culture in the Tremembé da Barra do Mundaú
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".