CorText Manager around the world

2024

Journal Articles

Chiffoleau, Yuna; Dourian, Tara; Enderli, Géraldine; Mattioni, Dalia; Akermann, Grégori; Loconto, Allison; Galli, Francesca; Emese, Gulyás; Perényi, Zsófia; Colombo, Luca; Massari, Sonia; Desclaux, Dominique

Reversing the trend of agrobiodiversity decline by co-developing food chains with consumers: A European survey for change Journal Article

In: 2024.

Abstract | BibTeX | Links:

@article{Chiffoleau2024,

title = {Reversing the trend of agrobiodiversity decline by co-developing food chains with consumers: A European survey for change},

author = {Yuna Chiffoleau and Tara Dourian and Géraldine Enderli and Dalia Mattioni and Grégori Akermann and Allison Loconto and Francesca Galli and Gulyás Emese and Zsófia Perényi and Luca Colombo and Sonia Massari and Dominique Desclaux},

url = {https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352550924000575},

doi = {/10.1016/j.spc.2024.02.032},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-02-22},

abstract = {Agrobiodiversity is in rapid decline, due to the intensification of agriculture and the development of food value chains based on industrial processing techniques. However, consumers are not generally involved in developing solutions to reverse this trend and their relation to agrobiodiversity remains largely unknown. As part of a European project, and with the aim of involving consumers in guiding research, innovation and policies, a large online survey (n=2,397) and focus groups (n= 82) were carried out in seven countries to gather consumers’ preferences and aversions regarding the use of agrobiodiversity in food chains in relation to their environmental concerns, food consumption practices and knowledge. Using the majority judgment approach typically used to improve political votes, different options for using of agrobiodiversity in food chains were proposed to citizen-consumers. Results first showed that the decline of agrobiodiversity is a concern for consumers, but does not guide food choices. Then, the alternative options for using agrobiodiversity in food chains, previously documented as favourable to its conservation and development, received positive votes from a large majority of respondents, regardless of their socio-economic category. However, the research showed that respondents seem to have limited knowledge on the subject. This study calls for more research and policies to support alternative options for using agrobiodiversity in food chains. It also encourages the co-development of agrobiodiversity-based markets with citizen-consumers as well as the creation of food environments conducive to learning on agrobiodiversity.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

2022

Book Chapters

Loconto, Allison

Gouverner par les métriques : un exercice dans l'intermédiation des connaissances Book Chapter

In: Sciences, techniques et agricultures : gouverner pour transformer, 2022, ISBN: 978-2-35671-845-7.

Abstract | BibTeX | Links:

@inbook{Loconto2022,

title = {Gouverner par les métriques : un exercice dans l'intermédiation des connaissances },

author = {Allison Loconto },

url = {https://hal.inrae.fr/hal-03674025},

isbn = {978-2-35671-845-7},

year  = {2022},

date = {2022-09-01},

urldate = {2022-09-01},

booktitle = {Sciences, techniques et agricultures : gouverner pour transformer},

abstract = {The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) plays a dual role in the governance of global food security, as both an arena for policy debate and as a 'universal' knowledge institution. FAO defines itself as a 'neutral knowledge broker'. One of the instruments used to achieve this is the annual flagship publication: The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World (SOFI). It is the global reference report on developments in the fight against hunger and tracks progress made towards the achievement of the goal of food and nutrition security. The 2017 SOFI Report marks an important turning point in the history of food security reporting. On the one hand, it observed that the decline in the Prevalence of Undernourishment (PoU), observed over the previous 10 years, had probably been reversed. On the other hand, it introduced new metrics that would enable FAO reporting to also report on progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). An important change is that it proposed a subjective measure of food insecurity, the Food Insecurity Experience Scale (FIES), whereas, until then, the PoU proposed an "objective" measure based on a balance between availability and estimated needs. Based on a lexical analysis of SOFI reports and an ethnography within the FAO, the objective of this chapter is to shed light on the relationship between quantification techniques and global policies. By developing the concept of knowledge intermediation and its infrastructures, an original reflection is presented about how governance through metrics can affect our ways of knowing about food security. },

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

2021

Technical Reports

Loconto, Allison; Garrido-Garza, Francisco

Formal and informal European quality assurance initiatives offering a connection between local gastronomy and small-scale farmers Technical Report

2021.

Abstract | BibTeX | Links:

@techreport{Loconto2021,

title = {Formal and informal European quality assurance initiatives offering a connection between local gastronomy and small-scale farmers},

author = {Allison Loconto and Francisco Garrido-Garza},

url = {https://www.cortext.net/wp-content/uploads/agrikulti_final-report_25-01-2021.pdf},

year  = {2021},

date = {2021-01-25},

abstract = {Since the turn of the 21st century, short food supply chains (SFSC) (Renting et al., 2003; Marsden et al., 2000) and values-based food chains (Ostrom et al., 2017) have emerged across Europe as an increasingly popular means to create closer linkages between producers and consumers. While the European Union (EU) average for farms selling more than half of their production direction to consumers is near 15 %, this is distributed unevenly among member nations and is largely restricted to small farms (Augére-Granier, 2016). This report argues that direct sales had minor importance in Malta, Austria and Spain, where supermarkets dominate food retail with more than 90% market share. However, direct sales, traditional specialty shops and food markets are very important in other countries. Direct sales account for 25% in Greece, 21% in France, 19% in Slovakia and around 18% in Hungary, Romania and Estonia (Augére-Granier, 2016). In addition, a nationally representative survey in France found that 42% of consumers had purchased food through a SFSC during the month prior to the study (Loisel et al., 2016).

SFSCs are considered to be short based on criteria of social and geographic proximity.

Kneafsey et al. (2013) put forward the following definition – based on French ministerial and the European Commission (EC) definitions – in order to separate these initiatives from conventional food chains.

“The foods involved are identified by, and traceable to a farmer. The number of intermediaries between farmer and consumer should be ‘minimal’ or ideally nil.” (p. 42).

Recent consumer research demonstrates that trust-worthiness of food chain actors and the openness of food manufacturers are strongly related to consumer confidence in food (Macready et al., 2020). Thus, the assumption of SFSC promoters is that this greater transparency translates into greater consumer confidence in producers and as a result more social, equitable and fairer trading practices between producers and consumers.

Quality assurance and certification are the most common means used to communicate transparency and openness in both conventional and sustainable supply chains (UN environment, 2017). Prior research demonstrates that there are a variety of ways in which assurance and certification can be organized in order to credibly guarantee quality (Loconto, 2017a).

Within this context, the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture has commissioned AGRI KULTI to develop an information and quality assurance system, that identifies management patterns across the connection of local production and gastronomy, both in Hungary and in the European Union (Food Track project). For this reason, a comprehensive and comparative data analysis is required. Thus, this study consisted of exploring and analysing initiatives, businesses or organizations in the EU that can be classified as SFSCs and that communicate their sustainability quality attributions (e.g., organic, local, healthy, agro-ecological, traditional, etc.) through a variety of forms of certification.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {techreport}

}

Since the turn of the 21st century, short food supply chains (SFSC) (Renting et al., 2003; Marsden et al., 2000) and values-based food chains (Ostrom et al., 2017) have emerged across Europe as an increasingly popular means to create closer linkages between producers and consumers. While the European Union (EU) average for farms selling more than half of their production direction to consumers is near 15 %, this is distributed unevenly among member nations and is largely restricted to small farms (Augére-Granier, 2016). This report argues that direct sales had minor importance in Malta, Austria and Spain, where supermarkets dominate food retail with more than 90% market share. However, direct sales, traditional specialty shops and food markets are very important in other countries. Direct sales account for 25% in Greece, 21% in France, 19% in Slovakia and around 18% in Hungary, Romania and Estonia (Augére-Granier, 2016). In addition, a nationally representative survey in France found that 42% of consumers had purchased food through a SFSC during the month prior to the study (Loisel et al., 2016).
SFSCs are considered to be short based on criteria of social and geographic proximity.
Kneafsey et al. (2013) put forward the following definition – based on French ministerial and the European Commission (EC) definitions – in order to separate these initiatives from conventional food chains.
“The foods involved are identified by, and traceable to a farmer. The number of intermediaries between farmer and consumer should be ‘minimal’ or ideally nil.” (p. 42).
Recent consumer research demonstrates that trust-worthiness of food chain actors and the openness of food manufacturers are strongly related to consumer confidence in food (Macready et al., 2020). Thus, the assumption of SFSC promoters is that this greater transparency translates into greater consumer confidence in producers and as a result more social, equitable and fairer trading practices between producers and consumers.
Quality assurance and certification are the most common means used to communicate transparency and openness in both conventional and sustainable supply chains (UN environment, 2017). Prior research demonstrates that there are a variety of ways in which assurance and certification can be organized in order to credibly guarantee quality (Loconto, 2017a).
Within this context, the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture has commissioned AGRI KULTI to develop an information and quality assurance system, that identifies management patterns across the connection of local production and gastronomy, both in Hungary and in the European Union (Food Track project). For this reason, a comprehensive and comparative data analysis is required. Thus, this study consisted of exploring and analysing initiatives, businesses or organizations in the EU that can be classified as SFSCs and that communicate their sustainability quality attributions (e.g., organic, local, healthy, agro-ecological, traditional, etc.) through a variety of forms of certification.

2019

Journal Articles

Loconto, Allison; Desquilbet, Marion; Moreau, Théo; Couvet, Denis; Dorin, Bruno

The land sparing – land sharing controversy: Tracing the politics of knowledge Journal Article

In: Land Use Policy, vol. 96, 2019.

Abstract | BibTeX | Links:

@article{Loconto2018,

title = {The land sparing – land sharing controversy: Tracing the politics of knowledge},

author = {Allison Loconto and Marion Desquilbet and Théo Moreau and Denis Couvet and Bruno Dorin},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.014},

doi = {10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.014},

year  = {2019},

date = {2019-01-01},

urldate = {2019-01-01},

journal = {Land Use Policy},

volume = {96},

abstract = {Feeding 9 billion people by 2050 on one hand, and preserving biodiversity on the other hand, are two shared policy goals at the global level. Yet while these goals are clear, they are to some extent in conflict, because agriculture is a major cause of biodiversity loss, and the path to achieve both of them is at the heart of a public controversy around ‘productive’ land use and biodiversity conservation. Over the years, the scientific, policy, civil society and agri-business communities have been engaged in producing evidence that can support a land sparing policy (separating intensive agricultural production from biodiversity conservation) or a land sharing policy (integrating the two in larger and more extensive landscapes). This paper contributes to this debate by analyzing land sparing and land sharing (LSS) as a socio-technical controversy. Through the analysis of large and small corpora of scientific, policy, corporate social responsibility and sustainability standards documents we explore the ethical underpinnings and social networks that support the opposing sides of this controversy. We explore these linkages in order to explain how the concept of land sparing achieved dominance in the scientific literature and how the concept has been taken up in international policy, business and civil society circles. We examine the convergences and divergences in alliances between actors in this controversy in order to map how specific actors have promoted the concept of land sparing as the best way to used land for biodiversity and food production.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Technical Reports

Loconto, Allison; Silva-Castañeda, Laura; Arnold, Nadine; Jimenez, Alejandra

Participatory Analysis of the Use and Impact of the Fairtrade Premium Technical Report

2019.

Abstract | BibTeX | Links:

2018

Journal Articles

Nicot, Rose; Bellon, Stéphane; Loconto, Allison; Ollivier, Guillaume

The European networks of research, education and training stakeholders in agroecology Journal Article

In: Open Agriculture, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 537–552, 2018.

Abstract | BibTeX | Links:

@article{Nicot2018,

title = {The European networks of research, education and training stakeholders in agroecology},

author = {Rose Nicot and Stéphane Bellon and Allison Loconto and Guillaume Ollivier},

url = {https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2018-0058},

doi = {10.1515/opag-2018-0058},

year  = {2018},

date = {2018-12-05},

urldate = {2018-12-05},

journal = {Open Agriculture},

volume = {3},

number = {1},

pages = {537–552},

abstract = {In Europe, agroecology has become the center of many debates that animate political and professional arenas, particularly regarding the definition and scope of the concept itself. This paper attempts to understand the ways that the term agroecology is conceptualized by different participantsparticipants and how these concepts circulate so as to explore the interests at stake in the institutionalization of agroecology within the research and education institutions of Europe. We address the core research question of: what dynamics emerge in the networks of European stakeholders of agroecology? By combining different approaches of institutionalization based on network and discourse analysis, we study the dynamics of research, education and training organizations. We identify 10 different concepts of agroecology, distributed among 103 organizations. The significant difference that has been observed between the agroecological concepts in research and those in education/training emphasizes the gap between these two disciplines. The latter support a more political, transdisciplinary and holistic view of agroecology when compared to the former. Moreover, collaboration among European agroecology stakeholders is limited in both research and education/training. We also found that in most cases, collaboration between scholars does not guarantee a shared notion of agroecology, and conversely, sharing the same notion of agroecology does not assure collaboration. This led us to question the feasibility of institutionalizing agroecology and the missing link between a shared vision and the collective mobilization of stakeholders around a strong agroecology programme.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

2016

Book Chapters

Tancoigne, Elise; Randles, Sally; Joly, Pierre-Benoît

Evolution of a concept: a scientometric analysis of RRI Book Chapter

In: Lindner, Ralf; Kuhlmann, Stefan; Randles, Sally; Bedsted, Bjørn; Gorgoni, Guido; Griessler, Erich; Loconto, Allison; Mejlgaard, Niels (Ed.): Navigating Towards Shared Responsibility in Research and Innovation: Approach, Process and Results of the Res-AGorA Project, pp. 40-45, 2016.

Abstract | BibTeX | Links:

@inbook{Tancoigne2016,

title = {Evolution of a concept: a scientometric analysis of RRI},

author = {Elise Tancoigne and Sally Randles and Pierre-Benoît Joly},

editor = {Ralf Lindner and Stefan Kuhlmann and Sally Randles and Bjørn Bedsted and Guido Gorgoni and Erich Griessler and Allison Loconto and Niels Mejlgaard},

url = {http://irihs.ihs.ac.at/3909/1/urn_nbn_de_0011-n-3829371-3.pdf},

year  = {2016},

date = {2016-01-01},

booktitle = {Navigating Towards Shared Responsibility in Research and Innovation: Approach, Process and Results of the Res-AGorA Project},

pages = {40-45},

abstract = {Political scientists have considered the complex interac-tions between words and power for a long time. The power of words lies not only in the performativity of language – a typical situation where saying something is doing some-thing – but covers a wide range of means related to sense making, issue framing, and the control of perception and the interpretation of reality. The importance of words of power (meaning powerful actors) may be identified in different mundane operations of political life (i.e. when spin doctors elaborate elements of language) and through well-known operations such as labelling or storytelling. These strong interactions between words and power have been taken into account in various streams of public policy analysis (Fischer 2003). They are also a central theme of policy fiction such as George Orwell’s 1984 which points out the role of “Newspeak” in totalitarian states. Hence, the appearance of new expressions in policy discourse ought to be considered as a symptom of crisis and / or of potential key changes. The case of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is interesting for its own sake but also since it illustrates the key role of the European Com-mission as a political entrepreneur which heavily draws on discourse framing (Schmidt and Radaelli 2004). In this chapter, we question the power of RRI words as well as the use of RRI by powerful institutions. What is the power of RRI, i.e. (to say it roughly) a tool for recasting governance of research and innovation or a tool for washing responsi-bility (Randles et al. 2014)? Who are the actors who define /discuss / promote RRI?},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {inbook}

}

LIST OF SCIENTIFIC WORKS THAT HAVE USED CORTEXT MANAGER
(Sources: Google Scholar, HAL, Scopus, WOS and search engines)

We are grateful that you have found CorTexT Manager useful. Over the years, you have been more than 1050 authors to trust CorTexT for your publicly accessible analyzes. This represents a little less than 10% of CorTexT Manager user’s community. So, thank you!

We seek to understand how the scientific production that used CorText Manager has evolved and to characterise it. You will find here our analysis of this scientific production.

Browse documents by main topics

Documents per language
Documents per language
350 English
121 French
13 Portuguese
12 Spanish
4 Chinese
4 Danish
2 Korean
1 Japanese
1 Norwegian
1 Ukrainian
1 Persian

What types of documents?
What types of documents?
234 journal articles
42 conference proceedings
41 conference (not in proceedings)
39 Ph.D. thesis
31 reports
30 online articles
23 book chapters
21 masters thesis
12 workshop
11 bachelorthesis
10 book
5 miscellaneous
2 presentation
1 manual
1 workingpaper
1 proceedings

Main peer-reviewed journals
Main peer-reviewed journals
Scientometrics
I2D - Information, données & documents
Revue d’anthropologie des connaissances
Réseaux
PloS one
Revue d'anthropologie des connaissances
Library Hi Tech
Journal of Rural Studies
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Energy Economics

2024

Journal Articles

2022

Book Chapters

2021

Technical Reports

2019

Journal Articles

Technical Reports

2018

Journal Articles

2016

Book Chapters

Browse documents by main topics

Browse narrower topics