“The whole concept is just a joke. A right to food?” A phenomenological study on state initiative in Vancouver’s food justice and sovereignty movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is informed by a collection of discussions that highlight participant perspectives on Vancouver’s food justice and food sovereignty movement, mainstream food discourse in the city, and how the state’s institutional role is involved in prospects for the future. Vancouver, Canada constitutes an appropriate case as a dense, urban, and intensely commodified space with conspicuous pockets of concentrated food activism. A phenomenological approach is used on this food-based social movement, drawing on six semi-structured interviews with select participants stemming from a wide breadth of organisational expertise and knowledge in the movement. In looking at this food-based social movement, participants reflected on several aspects of obstructions to actualising food justice and sovereignty rooted in the existing neoliberal and commodified food system. In conversation, participants interwove narratives of Canada’s historic and ongoing processes of settler-colonialism and disempowerment, the dominant economic model, and contemporary social justice to further motivate the need for food systems change. This thesis concludes with potential paths forward in which participants hold optimism for the future of social solidarity and food systems transformation.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.032 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".