Implementing Holistic Solutions to Food Insecurity in Calgary, Alberta - An Analysis with Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of non-profit food aid in tandem with the rise of neoliberalism neglects to address the root causes of food insecurity. As non-profits have embraced public private partnerships and taken on the burden of providing food aid in place of governmental food programs, they have become increasingly corporate in their operations and have come to rely on food waste mitigation to fuel their food donations. The prevalence of this neoliberal, traditional food aid system benefits governments by creating a network of non-profits that act as a second safety net. By offloading food aid to non-profits, food insecurity can be neatly swept under the rug and ignored by policymakers, because civil society is seen as providing a solution, albeit a temporary one. In examining the prevalence of food insecurity in Canada, researchers have determined that food insecurity is a chronic issue driven by a complex network of root causes, including economic inequality, insufficient fixed government income, marginalization, and health challenges. To better address these root causes, holistic approaches to food insecurity, in opposition to many of the operating tenets of traditional, neo-liberal food aid, are being developed and further explored. In Calgary, agencies within the food aid system welcome holistic approaches to food insecurity but find themselves hampered by challenges at the local and wider systemic levels. This paper identifies some of these challenges to achieving 1) funding, 2) collaboration, and 3)intentions among agencies that fully support holism. It provides guidance and points of consideration for agencies and policymakers to make progress in transitioning towards holistic approaches to food insecurity.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".