MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6926953069 · doi:10.25607/obp-1695

Alaskan Inuit Food Security Conceptual Framework: How to assess the Arctic from an Inuit Perspective.

2015· report· en· W6926953069 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIOC of UNESCO (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission) · 2015
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMicrobial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticFood securityIndigenousTraditional knowledgeThe arcticFood systems

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drastic changes are occurring within our world. We are on the forefront of these changes. We have lived here for millennia and have grown and changed with all that is around us. All that is around us physically and spiritually nourishes us, and our culture reflects the Arctic because we are part of this ecosystem. With these rapid changes comes the need for holistic information based on Indigenous Knowledge (IK) and science. With this understanding, we brought our concerns regarding the impact of Arctic changes on our food security to forums throughout the Arctic. Through these conversations, it quickly became evident that we were referring to something different than those we were holding the discussions with. We have often heard people within academia, policy and management speak to us of nutritional value, calories and money needed to purchase food. All of this is important, but not what we are talking about when we say food security. We are speaking about the entire Arctic ecosystem and the relationships between all components within. We are talking about how our language teaches us when, where and how to obtain, process, store and consume food; the importance of dancing and potlucks to share foods and how our economic system is tied to this. We are talking about our rights to govern how we obtain, process, store and consume food; about our IK and how it will aid in illuminating the changes that are occurring. We are talking about what food security means to us, to our people, to our environment and how we see this environment. We are talking about our culture. From the realization that we need to fully share what our food security means within the Alaska Arctic, this project was born. There has been a lot of positive work completed and work that is ongoing to increase academic and governmental understanding of food security. The outcomes of this project come directly from us, Alaskan Inuit, to share what our food security is, how to assess changes occurring and how to move forward in a way that will strengthen our food security. The objectives for the project were clear from the beginning – define food security, identify what the drivers (or causes) of food (in)security are, create a conceptual framework and provide an assessment process to determine Alaskan Inuit food security. What resulted is something much more. As we came together through community meetings, oneon- one and group interviews, regional workshops and numerous conversations, we realized that the drivers of our food security are all the same and that what make up food security within each of our identities, villages and regions is the same.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOC of UNESCO (Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission)Same topicMicrobial Natural Products and BiosynthesisFrench-language works237,207