Pathways, Barriers, and Contributions of Older Adults in the Food Justice Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In North America, older adults are increasingly facing food insecurity and are among a rapidly growing group of emergency food users. While the food justice movement advocates for the “right to food” and equitable access within food systems, the contributions of older adults within this movement remain underexplored. This narrative review addresses this gap, synthesizing literature at the intersection of food system advocacy and aging. The findings reveal existing pathways, barriers, and opportunities for older adults in the food justice movement. The thematic analysis of relevant articles revealed three pathways of involvement for older adults: as cultural stewards sharing oral histories, as engaged citizens in food system governance, and as participants in alternative food networks that enhance access to food. Barriers to their engagement include differing conceptualizations of the “right to food,” limited knowledge of food systems, self-perceived lack of agency, and structural constraints. The review also identifies opportunities for older adults to become involved in food justice, including intergenerational collaborations and participatory engagement in food governance. Recognizing the unique perspectives and experiences of older adults within food systems positions them as social change agents in the broader food justice movement, helping to address ageism and contribute to a more inclusive and sustainable food future.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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".