MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7042106492

OPENING UP THE BOX: EXPLORING THE SCALING OUT OF THE GOOD FOOD BOX ACROSS CANADA

2013· dissertation· en· W7042106492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Mathematics Enthusiast · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood securityDiversity (politics)AgricultureBalance (ability)Distribution (mathematics)Food systemsQualitative research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Good Food Box (GFB) program holds a great deal of promise to expand our understanding of Community Food Security (CFS). CFS represents a vision for solving hunger and other problems with the food system through an integrated approach that improves access to good and appropriate food for all while at the same time building community, strengthening local agricultural economies, and maximizing social justice. The GFB, one type of CFS program, is a community-based initiative found across Canada that provides a box of healthy food to customers at near wholesale prices; it has the potential to increase access to healthy food, develop alternative distribution channels, link producers more closely with consumers, build community connections, and more. Yet despite the fact that over 50 unique GFB programs exist across Canada, little research has been done on how these myriad programs are structured and function, how this program model has spread to and been adapted by communities across Canada, and how individual programs operate while balancing multiple goals and priorities. This paper, based on qualitative interviews with managers at 21 GFB programs across Canada, explores the diversity of GFB programs in Canada, and how these programs balance multiple priorities along with day-to-day logistical constraints. GFB programs functioning across Canada have diverse goals, tensions sometimes arise when balancing multiple goals, and programs have found various ways to resolve these tensions. Moreover, GFB programs are educating and empowering people in their communities, as well as networking and learning among themselves. This is one of the first studies describing the breadth of GFB programs across Canada, and some of the findings have not been identified in previous scholarship. I describe the variety of program structures, the main priorities and goals that the programs identify, and some of the tensions and innovations that arise when working to balance the multiple goals and dimensions of CFS. I also discuss how programs communicate and learn from each other, and how the GFB in Canada can help us understand the CFS movement more generally.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.220
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Mathematics EnthusiastSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207