Taking Stock of Canada's Approach to Food Insecurity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1998, the Department of Agriculture and Agri-food published a document entitled Canada’s Action Plan for Food Security, outlining seven commitments stemming from a 1996 World Food Summit in Rome. The goal was to reduce the number of undernourished people in the world by half by the year 2015. Instead, Canada witnessed a slow but steady growth of those identifying as food insecure in the two decades following the publication of the Action Plan. There are many hypotheses as to why that is the case, with the bulk of the literature focusing on a policy environment characterized by government inaction and \noverburdened civil society organizations. This thesis argues that this policy environment was not an accident, but the result policy tools selected to address this social issue by successive federal governments. To that end, the thesis employs a policy tools analytical framework to categorize the types of tools chosen as either procedural or substantive in nature, and in doing so it assesses the amount of priority placed on household food insecurity. It quantifies the number of tools chosen to address food industry concerns versus those aimed at frontline service providers, and illustrates why the recently published National Food Policy was necessary to address an issue identified as worthy of government intervention two decades earlier.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".