MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7057258982

Indigenous Food Sovereignty and 1994 Tribal Land-Grant Colleges and Universities

2022· article· en· W7057258982 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Mathematics Enthusiast · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle accelerators and beam dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousFood sovereigntyFoodwaysFood systemsSovereigntyPoliticsFood securityTraditional knowledge
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Indigenous food systems are an essential asset of tribal sovereignty; however, these systems have been colonized, altered, and in some cases, destroyed. Although the causes are extremely complex, the loss of indigenous food systems is rooted in colonization, the removal of tribal people from their indigenous homelands, and the alienation of tribal people from their traditional foodways (Mihesuah and Hoover, 2019; Cote, 2016). Indigenous food sovereignty (IFS) “refers to a reconnection to land-based food and political systems,” and seeks to uphold “sacred responsibilities to nurture relationships with our land, culture, spirituality, and future generations” (Mihesuah and Hoover, 2019). Through the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act of 1994 passed by the U.S. Congress, there are 32 federally recognized Tribal Land-grant Colleges and Universities (TCU) designated as land-grant institutions that help improve the lives and career opportunities for tribal students and tribal communities by supporting research, education, and extension programs that include the enhancement of local agriculture and food production (Gasman et al., 2008). Overall the role of TCUs in building and supporting IFS is unknown, investigating why they are not more involved in IFS, and/or what barriers these institutions encounter will allow us to evaluate what type of resources they need to better serve indigenous communities and understand what can the TCUs do, to better support IFS as leaders? A comprehensive literature review on IFS within indigenous-led programming, non-indigenous initiatives, and its intersectionality with TCUs will be performed. Cote (2016) mentions that IFS is positioned as a restorative framework that places responsibility and action on [Indigenous] individuals and communities to repair and strengthen relationships to ancestral homelands weakened by colonialism, globalization, and neoliberal policies. To research these roles, a survey will be distributed and analyzed to at least three key individuals from each TCU, followed by interviews at selected TCU campuses. This work is vital to help tribal communities progress their sovereignty and IFS among their tribal communities and TCU campuses. References Cote, C. (2016) “Indigenizing” Food Sovereignty. Revitalizing Indigenous Food Practices and Ecological Knowledges in Canada and the United States. Humanities. Gasman, M., Baez, B., Sotello, C., and Turner, V. (2008) Understanding Minority-Serving Institutions. State University of New York. Mihesuah, D. and Hoover, E. (2019) Indigenous Food Sovereignty in the United States: Restoring Cultural Knowledge, Protecting Environments, and Regaining Health. University of Oklahoma Press.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.181 · 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.

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Mathematics EnthusiastSame topicParticle accelerators and beam dynamicsFrench-language works237,207