Community Food Security: Theory and Practice in Newfoundland and Labrador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though food is a basic need, achieving food security is a challenge to the world today. Thus, stakeholders have used and continue to search for appropriate strategies of promoting food security in different contexts. This is particularly important in rural areas where food insecurity has been a menace in many jurisdictions. After several years of emphasis on household and national food security approaches, the concept of Community Food Security emerged on the agenda, accompanied by interventions that take inspiration from the concept. Being relatively new to food security discourse and practice, “Community Food Security” has received little attention in many areas. However, it could hold potential for rural food security promotion. Using content analysis of literature, the research outlines the emergence of community food security, its theoretical approach, and drivers of the approach in recent times. The concept is then positioned in the context of food security promotion in Newfoundland and their implications for rural food security. The research outlines current projects and interventions that takes inspiration from the concept, and what that holds for rural food security promotion in the province. The research also highlights the key features of community centered food security interventions in the province while raising important questions about their appropriateness for food security promotion and directions for future research. This will provide important inputs to policy and planning towards food security as the community is called upon to drive food security promotion.
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".