MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7035816568

Agroecology as a social movement : a case study of the Prince George's County Food Equity Council in Maryland, United States

2016· other· en· W7035816568 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEpsilon Archive for Student Projects (University of Southampton) · 2016
Typeother
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFern and Epiphyte Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgroecologyFood systemsFood sovereigntyAgricultureFood policySocial movementConsolidation (business)Equity (law)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States has experienced a drastic change in its food system within the last century. A locally-based, self-sufficient model has been replaced by one that is characterized by a consolidation of business and farms into fewer hands; a mechanization and specialization of agriculture management; and the looming threat of urban development encroaching on farmland. On the other side of the food supply chain, consumers in the U.S. are increasingly susceptible to obesity and diet-related illnesses, even though a substantial part of the population is food insecure. Low-income communities feel these ailments the most, as the most affordable food in these areas is highly processed, grain-based, and calorie dense, yet lacking in nutrition. Compounded with these flaws is the country’s fragmented and contradictory policy approach to food and agriculture. \nIn response to these numerous systemic shortfalls, hundreds of food movements have developed and expanded in the U.S. and around the world: local food, Slow Food, community food security, food justice, food sovereignty, fair trade, and agroecology. In recent years, researchers have explored the local food policy council movement as an opportunity to converge these various interests. By joining a diverse group of community stakeholders, local food policy councils can potentially develop comprehensive food policies which are responsive to local needs. This study is inspired by this potential, as well as the potential of agroecology movements as enablers for systemic policy change. In 2009, Wezel et al. categorized agroecology as a scientific discipline, agricultural practice, and social movement. In movement form, agroecology often works in conjunction with other food movements for mutual benefit. This thesis research set out to gain a clearer understanding of agroecology as a social movement, and to understand its relationship to food policy councils. \nA case study was conducted of the Prince George’s County Food Equity Council (FEC) in Maryland, U.S., using three main methods of data collection: semi-structured interviews, direct observations, and archival records and documents. The research assumed a systems approach and constructivist paradigm. Data was analyzed by testing for the presence of agroecology principles – namely, ‘inclusivity’, ‘community orientation’, and a ‘food systems approach’ –, which were determined from a preliminary literature review. In addition, analysis considered concepts from social movement literature. \nIt was found that the FEC works to include a diversity of stakeholders from across the food supply chain, including members of the general public. The principle of community orientation is present in the FEC’s policy activities. For example, the decision to name the council a food equity council, rather than a food policy council, was based on the FEC’s acknowledgment that fairness is a prominent issue throughout Prince George’s County’s food system. Results from data collection indicate that the FEC’s food systems approach is influenced by the member demographic of the council. It was found that the FEC – as well as many food policy councils – work to identify and break down barriers to the implementation of programs and policies. While councils strive to maintain a food systems approach in their activities, one challenge observed in the data and literature is the acquisition and maintenance of a diversity of stakeholders representing the entire food supply chain. \nThe outcomes of the study show that food policy councils and agroecology movements share similar characteristics and values. As a social movement organization, food policy councils benefit from inclusion of an array of stakeholders, in that movement networks are both converged and expanded. These network connections can also facilitate engagement of a broader community population. In addition, the strengthening of these networks serves to benefit councils in the sense of resource mobilization: extensive, diverse network connections can facilitate a flow of knowledge, political capital, and other resources useful for furthering movement interests. These networks are characteristic of an alternative paradigm which has emerged in global justice movements. The paradigm emphasizes the importance of decentralized, participatory movement networks in bringing about social change. In this context, food policy councils offer an opportunity to coordinate, harmonize, and strengthen the various initiatives and interests of food movements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0320.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpsilon Archive for Student Projects (University of Southampton)Same topicFern and Epiphyte BiologyFrench-language works237,207