MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415977146 · doi:10.5304/jafscd.2025.151.004

Common Ground Canada Network: Building relationships for just and sustainable agriculture and food systems transitions

2025· article· en· W4415977146 on OpenAlexaffabout
Karen Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community Development · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipAgricultureSustainable agricultureCommon groundIndigenousFood systemsSustainable Agriculture Innovation NetworkSustainabilityFood sovereignty

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The Common Ground Canada Network[1] (CGCN) is a national partnership of social science and humanities (SSH) researchers, community organi­zations, Indigenous leaders, farmers, policymakers, and civil society groups working together to trans­form Canada’s agriculture and food systems in pur­suit of a sustainable, net-zero future. CGCN recog­nizes that climate change is not just a technical problem requiring the expertise of natural scientists and engineering; it is also a problem of relationships between people and the land, between rural and urban communities, between Canada and the world, and between people within/and food sys­tems. An initial team of 49 academics at 13 institu­tions and 22 nonprofit/nongovernmental organiza­tions responded to a joint opportunity from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) to form a Social Science Research Network on Sustainable Agriculture in a Net-Zero Economy, and Common Ground, with its focus on relations and relationships, was the winning pro­posal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.489

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0200.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0030.014
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.005

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 head0.293
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community DevelopmentSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207