Bibliographic record
Abstract
The proportion of seniors in the Canadian population is increasing and will continue to rise in the future. Nutrition plays a very important role for seniors because it can improve quality of life, decrease mortality and morbidity rates, and improve overall health status. As seniors age they are at a greater risk of developing chronic disease and nutrition plays an important role in helping to decrease this risk. However, a number of barriers have been identified that can effect food security and the nutritional health of this group. These include financial resources, social support, transportation, and access to nutrition services. -- The purpose of this study was to survey seniors in rural Newfoundland communities to identify factors which may predispose them to food insecurity. The study was a cross-sectional descriptive study of seniors residing in several rural communities in Newfoundland within Economic Zone 17. The definition of senior for the purpose of this study included individuals who were 65 years and older. Seniors' were recruited using seniors groups, churches, clinics and Health and Community Services sites. The convenient study sample consisted of 144 seniors with a response rate of 39%. The data was collected using a questionnaire that seniors completed themselves and the BPI-Info Program was used for data analysis. -- Seniors were considered to be food secure when no problems were identified with respect to food availability, accessibility or consumption of food. Overall, the majority of seniors in this sample were food secure and no major issues were identified that predisposed this group to be at risk for food insecurity. Ninety-two percent of participants indicated they were eating enough of the foods that they wanted to eat. Eighty-six percent of participants reported they were food secure and that they did not have to resort to any coping strategies to deal with food insecurity. A very small percentage of seniors indicated they may be at risk of experiencing food insecurity. Some seniors reported resorting to coping strategies to offset food security and these included: 2.1% took money out of savings, 2.1% borrowed money, 0.7% bought food on credit, 3.5% bought or prepared meals that cost less, 0.7% borrowed food from family or friends and 1.4% ate at the homes of family and friends. As well, 0.7% reported that sometimes they do not have enough to eat. There were no barriers identified with respect to transportation, social support, physical mobility and income. Overall, there were no problems with food availability or accessibility to food. -- Among seniors in Economic Zone 17 who participated in this study, no barriers were identified that may predispose them to be at risk for food insecurity. However, the sample was limited to seniors who were accessed through their participation in a variety of community activities. Seniors who are unable to participate in such activities may be at greater risk for food insecurity. Recommendations were made to further assess the food security situation in other rural areas in Newfoundland and Labrador at a later time. \n
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".