MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W647303043 · doi:10.60082/2563-4631.1002

The Right to Food and the Political Economy of Third World States

2014· article· en· W647303043 on OpenAlexaff
Opeoluwa Badaru

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Transnational Human Rights Review · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHuman Rights and Development
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood securityRight to foodContext (archaeology)PoliticsThird worldFace (sociological concept)Political scienceFood pricesFood systemsDevelopment economicsPolitical economyEconomicsGeographyAgricultureSociologyLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current global events validate the fact that beyond a theoretical analysis of rights discourse and food justice, there is a need to understand and propose ways to address the very fragile global food situation, and especially so in Third World states. At the peak of the high food prices in mid-2008, the world observed how the issue of access to food and the means to acquire food (in the larger context of other socio-economic needs) spurred riots from Egypt to Bangladesh and Mexico. And one cannot definitely say that we are out of the woods yet concerning rising food prices. Furthermore, with the current global financial crises and the implications on the food security of individuals and households, there is a need for research that critically examines the theory of rights and thereafter proposes practical means by which to ensure food security, especially in Third World states. This article therefore seeks to link a rigorous theoretical exercise with the real-life challenges that face millions of people globally, and particularly so in the Third World.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.021
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Transnational Human Rights ReviewSame topicHuman Rights and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207