Discourses and Practices of Campus Food Sustainability at Concordia University
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discourses and Practices of Campus Food Sustainability at Concordia University \nNil Alt Kecik \nMost North American universities employ transnational food service corporations to cater to predominantly residence populations. Known as the Big Three within the industrial food system, these corporations— Chartwells, Sodexho and Aramark—are the largest global food retailers. After Chartwell’s 13-year contract term at Concordia University ended, the university administration granted an exclusivity contract to Aramark in 2015. The university’s choice of food service provider, and its food procurement practices are in tension with Concordia’s discursive commitment to a ‘sustainable’ campus food system. Building on the epistemological tension between profit and sustainability, this study reviews the global commodity chain (GCC) framework, and its relevance for studying food system transformation through institutional consumption. The need to conceptualize GCCs as interlinked and complex flows of not only materials, but also of power, knowledge and discourse is the central theme. Grounded in this theme, the study looks at how the transition into food sustainability is governed and operationalized at Concordia. It is concluded that building direct producer-consumer relationships is more complicated than reflected with a linear supply chain imagery. At Concordia, subscription to this imagery muddles accountability and curtails the possibilities for alternatives.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".