Queering food sovereignty: “it feels like building community; to joyfully gather around food”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis seeks to fill the current gap in food sovereignty literature by bringing queer farmers perspectives and voices into the academic discourse. The focus of the analysis is if queer farmers in Canada are practicing a distinct form of food sovereignty, and if so, does it vary from the current transnational movement. To accomplish this goal, a phenomenological methodology was employed, and seven participants were invited to an interview to reflect on a range of questions and highlight pertinent topics. The interview process was supported by a literature review that captured works in food sovereignty, food justice, and the historical rise of food security. Similarly, topics such as queer farmers and queer people in rural settings were reviewed to identify themes in the literature and to be used as cross-references for a more thorough analysis. The findings of this thesis support the well documented themes of queer farmers experiences in agriculture as it relates to education, access, and security. Based on this study’s findings, the thesis concludes that currently there is not an explicitly distinct queer food sovereignty practice in Canada, but that the prospect for a queering process of the movement exists.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".