Food security for community-living elderly people in Beijing, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food security has been identified as an important issue for elderly people's quality of life and ageing in place. A food security index composed of three indicators (food intake, food quality and food affordability) was developed to measure the food security status of community-living elderly people. Food security was then examined among community-living elderly in the central urban districts of Beijing, China. Data were collected by a questionnaire survey in the summer of 2013 and the response rate was 78.5%. Descriptive statistics and binary logistic regression were applied to analyse food security and the associations between food security and demographic and socioeconomic factors. The results showed that 54.2% of the surveyed elderly experienced food security. Participants with better education (OR = 1.68) and better health (OR = 1.47) were more likely to experience food security. The young-old were less likely to experience food security than the older old (OR = 0.94). Elderly people who lived with their children were less likely to experience food security than those who lived alone (OR = 0.43). The results of impact factors on food security highlight both similarities with studies from more developed countries and the unique challenges faced in a rapidly changing China with its unique social, cultural and political systems. The food security index we developed in this study is a simple and effective measure of food security status, which can be used in surveys for evaluating the food security status of elderly people in the future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".