The University of British Columbia Food Sytem Project (UBCFSP)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The University of British Columbia Food System Project (UBCSP), a five-year participatory action research project of the campus food system, is in its third year of process. With the help and support of different departments and stakeholders at UBC, a series of studies have been done by the students of Agriculture Sciences (Agsc) 450. This year, scenarios addressing the desirability and feasibility of new initiatives for a sustainable campus food system were the focus of the team’s research. Students investigated diverse areas of the food system based on the inter-relations between the stakeholders: the Alma Mater Society Food and Beverage Department (AMSFBD), UBC Farm, UBC Waste Management, UBC Campus Sustainability Office (CSO) and its Social, Ecological, Economic and Development Studies (SEEDS) programs, and also the Faculty of Agricultural Science (FAS). In this context, our research team has taken on the multiple feasibility considerations for holding a successful Food Security conference using local foods at UBC. The research team will explore the guiding vision statement for all participants of the UBCSFP and link these concepts with the very hands-on process of planning a food event. We conclude that it is feasible to hold a food conference at UBC using local foods and suppliers. Nevertheless, we also stress that the feasibility will depend on several important qualifications, including some unconfirmed availability of products. We also recognize that the conference cannot be fully supplied by the local food system, and the ultimate decision about how local is ideal will have to be made by the key stakeholders. The challenges and limitations encountered in the process will also be discussed. The team will put forward recommendations for the key stakeholders in this project: the future researchers of Agricultural Sciences 450, the UBC Farm, and the AMSFBD. Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report.”
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.005 |
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".