Bibliographic record
Abstract
The welfare state continues to be eroded in the Global North. In Canada and the U.S., food banks are now one of the only systems of relief available. But in both countries, critics have accused food banks of being apolitical and thus taking away government responsibility to address inequality. The rise of food banks has been linked to the decline of the welfare state, leading to an assumption that an increase in public assistance can end the need for food banks. Yet little research exists that examines how other institutions such as the food industry drove food bank growth, or how food banks are politically active. The history of food banks in Canada presents an informative case study because the state was not directly involved in establishing food banks, thus allowing greater insight into the role of industry in the institutionalization of food banks and their political activity. Using environmental institutions and political ecology frameworks we conducted a literature review and interviews of experts, as well as a case study of one food bank. Our findings suggest that the factors leading to the existence of food banks cannot only be linked to cuts in welfare; rather, the influence of industrial decline and centralization of the food industry must also be taken into account, as well as social movements and the policy gap around food waste. Food banks can be political, using available resources as ‘fuel’ to challenge government failure. The case of Canadian food banks indicates that, to address inequality and food insecurity in the Global North, researchers and policy-makers should not only focus on welfare but need to tackle the cost-shifting practices of the food industry and work toward joined-up and nested food policy institutions. Further, food banks, or organizations that look like them, can help address rising food insecurity if they are provided with sufficient legal, political, and financial support.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".