Fostering Sustainable Food Systems in Newfoundland: \nA Case Study of the West Coast Farmers’ Market
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study attempted to assess the potential for a farmers’ market on the west coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, using the West Coast Farmers’ Market as a case study. An evaluation of this market was conducted from July 2011 – March 2012 to explore its challenges and success, and to seek potential ways forward for this specific market as well as for others in the province. \n \nIn order to assess the potential of a farmers’ market we committed to the following objectives: \n1. To assess the supply and demand of locally produced food in western Newfoundland \n2. To gather and analyze stakeholder views on the need and potential for developing farmers' markets in this region, as well as the barriers to its development \n3. To examine farmers' market governance models in other jurisdictions \n4. To evaluate current efforts to develop a farmers' market in reference to the case site of Corner Brook and to make practical recommendations for continued development at this site and in other communities in the province. \n \nThis research project is part of a larger study of food security in the Humber River Basin which examined the strengths and weaknesses of the local food system in the Humber River Basin through a community food security assessment. \n \n
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".