MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6976583778 · doi:10.60692/rx325-s2819

Knowledge networks to support youth engagement in sustainable food systems

2022· article· en· W6976583778 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of the Fraser Valley
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood systemsGrassrootsSustainabilityAgricultureSustainable agricultureFood policyTraditional knowledgeClimate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Young people are on the front lines of transforming agriculture and food systems, coping with the social and economic impacts of COVID-19 as well as environmental and climate change effects which are likely to accelerate and intensify during their lifetimes. At the same time, young people across global contexts are increasingly emerging as visible agents of change in food systems, especially through networks that create, transform, and distribute food systems knowledge. This policy and practice review examines the role of youth as actors through food systems knowledge networks. Increasing youth participation in creating sustainable food systems for the future requires policies and practices that support food systems-related knowledge in two ways: (1) democratizing formal education systems; and (2) strengthening horizontal networks of grassroots research and innovation, including through traditional, ecological, local and community knowledge (TELCK). Food systems policies should be developed through dialogue with diverse knowledge systems, experiences, place-based needs, and aspirations of young people to maximize their participation in food systems policy development and evaluation.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.157 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicAgriculture, Land Use, Rural DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207