The politics of food sovereignty: concept, practice and social movements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In The Politics of Food Sovereignty: Concept, Practice and Social Movements, editors Annie Shattuck, Christina Schiavoni, and Zoe VanGelder bring together some of the seminal contributions of the Yale McMillan Center Agrarian Studies Program’s 2013 conference focused on food sovereignty (“Food Sovereignty: A Critical Dialogue”). These proceedings were originally published in a special issue of the journal Globalizations (volume 12, issue 4, 2015). This book is valuable in general as it discusses the upcoming challenges and contradictions of food sovereignty, a rising concept and political movement in the Global South and North. Contrasting with the food sovereignty literature to date, which has mainly focused on the Global South (from which food sovereignty movements have emerged), this book shows how the original idea has expanded to encompass the Global North and urban communities. This book includes cases studies from the U.S., Canada, Russia, Peru, and Venezuela, demonstrating that many types of sovereignties may exist and coexist at different scales, which is a big challenge....
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".