Exploring northern Manitoba Red River Métis food sovereignty through the use of community gardens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous communities in northern Manitoba are facing higher levels of food insecurity, the result of continued colonial impacts and a changing environment. Sustained levels of food insecurity can result in negative impacts to physical, mental, and emotional wellbeing. This research project aims to improve local food security and sovereignty in northern Métis communities within the Manitoba Métis Federation Thompson Region. This research project was conducted in collaboration with the Manitoba Métis Federation Thompson Region, and was co-led by Elder Julyda Lagimodiere, the Thompson Region Vice-President. This food security research was centered around a community greenhouse pilot project started in Thompson, Manitoba. The greenhouse pilot project demonstrated improvements to local food security in Thompson and acted as a medium for education surrounding food systems and food security initiatives. In conjunction, a food security survey and interviews were conducted with Métis Citizens located in the Thompson Region. This research project was guided by Métis methodologies including wahkotowin, keeoukaywin and Lii Taab di Faam Michif (Métis Women’s Kitchen Table). In addition, the 5 Rs of Indigenous research (relationship, reciprocity, relevance, respect, and responsibility) were used to conduct Métis-specific and ethical research. A combination of mix methods and action-based research approaches were used within this project to ensure that community-centered Indigenous-led research was achieved. The results of the survey and interviews found four key areas of food security emerge, including: access to healthy foods, health and diet, foods from the land, and food security initiatives and education. The results clearly identified that food insecurity is present in northern Métis communities and is at risk of becoming worse in the near future. This research begins to address the clear lack of Métis -specific environmental research. This research project demonstrates the importance of Métis-specific food sovereignty to combat the growing food insecurity crisis in northern Manitoba.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".