MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2995825093 · doi:10.14288/1.0387086

Building Food Skills and Knowledge through Campus Workshops

2019· article· en· W2995825093 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lee Sherman, Ingrid Zeng, Lynn Tung, Odette Hobbis

Notice bibliographique

RevueOpen Collections · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueDietetics, Nutrition, and Education
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBusinessPublic relationsKnowledge managementComputer sciencePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Food literacy can be defined as an individual's ability to source, prepare, and consume healthy, safe, and nutritious food (Cullerton et al. 2015; Vidgen et al. 2014). Food literacy is an aggregated definition that encompasses components of food security, food skills and nutritional knowledge and is altered and mediated by environmental, social and cultural factors (Cullerton et al. 2015; Vidgen at al. 2014). Food insecurity is common on post-secondary campuses (Silverthorn, 2016). The statistic of Meal Exchange shows that 39% of students surveyed at 5 Canadian universities experience food insecurity while in school (Silverthorn, 2016). Common concerns are related to quality, nutrition content, and budgeting for food and are said to be affecting the mental and physical health of the participants. The USDA defines food insecurity as inadequate food access due to income or other social conditions (Public Health Report, 2016). Under current trends of neoliberalization in higher education institutes, as well as the increase in student debt in the past decade (Goodnight et al., 2014), university students are likely to fall under this category due to both economic stress and food skill limitations. Our project purpose was focused on understanding how to build students’ food skills and knowledge through campus workshops and to address the issues surrounding food literacy on UBC campus. Our objectives included building an inventory of workshops available to students on campus (via this report, or an online calendar), conducting a community survey to baseline food literacy at UBC, conducting a stakeholder survey to baseline workshop operational limitations/assets, identifying and addressing any overlaps and gaps between stakeholder workshops, and providing our stakeholders with recommendations to enhance campus food literacy. We conducted two surveys to gain better understanding of the workshops available at UBC. The first survey was a stakeholder survey where we compiled a list of stakeholders that are currently running workshops and surveyed them through email. Returning surveys suggested that the major challenge faced by stakeholders are difficulties in maintaining attendance and participation, followed by troubles in acquiring funding and equipment. The second survey was a community survey, where we surveyed 89 students in the UBC community on their self-perceived levels of food literacies, as well as their workshop experiences, preferences and their opinions and expectations on these workshops. While only one student out of the surveyed 89 reported to have participated in workshops, many students reported interest and high willingness to participate. Surveyed students however, reported limited knowledge on the available workshops on campus. Among the surveyed students, a weak positive correlation between food literacy levels and willingness to attend workshops has been identified; suggesting students who are more food literate are more likely to attend campus workshops. This posed a major question: what limits non food literate individuals from attending workshops to gain better skills? We found a weak positive correlation between food literacy and willingness to pay for workshops; suggesting cost may be one of many factors limiting self-reported food illiterate people from attending workshops. Some trends regarding specific student demographics (e.g. international vs. local status) and willingness to participate in and pay for workshops are also identified; suggesting workshops stakeholders should focus on advertisements to the international student body as they are both more likely to be food insecure while also more interested in attending workshops. More statistical data is required to prove these relationships. Focusing on the stakeholder reported difficulties in maintaining attendance and participation as well as the community reported lack of knowledge on workshops, we suggest that advertising and promotional efforts on these workshops should be improved to increase students’ knowledge of these events. Stakeholders are also encouraged to collaborate with each other, where the sharing of equipment and facilities may be able to relieve some difficulties faced by stakeholders. Further research on the factors limiting food literacy levels and the willingness to participate in workshops are also encouraged as the results can help our stakeholders identify their target audiences. 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.”

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,246
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,999

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,046
Tête enseignante GPT0,411
Écart entre enseignants0,366 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOpen CollectionsMême sujetDietetics, Nutrition, and EducationTravaux en français237 207