MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Food Deserts in the Prairies? Supermarket Accessibility and Neighborhood Need in Edmonton, Canada*

2006· article· en· W1966823031 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Professional Geographer · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban Transport and Accessibility
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuartileGeographyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The U.S. and U.K. literatures have discussed “food deserts,” reflecting populated, typically urban, low-income areas with limited access to full-service supermarkets. Less is known about supermarket accessibility within Canadian cities. This article uses the minimum distance and coverage methods to determine supermarket accessibility within the city of Edmonton, Canada, with a focus on high-need and inner-city neighborhoods. The results show that for 1999 both of these areas generally had higher accessibility than the remainder of the city, but six high-need neighborhoods had poor supermarket accessibility. We conclude by examining potential reasons for differences in supermarket accessibility between Canadian, U.S., and U.K. cities. Key Words: accessibilityEdmontonfood desertssupermarkets Notes a25th and 75th percentiles (given in italics) are provided for all residential neighborhoods only. Notes: Lower values of minimum distance and higher values of number of stores indicate higher access. p-values are given in italics. aFor each accessibility indicator, low accessibility neighborhoods are defined as those neighborhoods with accessibility scores in the lowest quartile. bFor each accessibility indicator, high accessibility neighborhoods are defined as those neighborhoods with accessibility scores in the highest quartile. Note: Z and p-values computed using Wilcoxon rank-sum test of means. Notes: Neighborhoods are identified by number rather than name for anonymity. aAll neighborhoods had zero stores within 1 km and fell within the top distance quartile. bAbove city-wide median for that variable. cWithin the top quartile for that variable. 1Low-income levels were based on CitationStatistics Canada's (1999) before-tax low-income cut-offs for urban areas with 500,000 people, along with 1999 Edmonton Civic Census cross tabulations of household size by household income. 2We selected the combination of methods used here, and used local knowledge and ground-truthing in uncertain cases to ensure as complete an enumeration as possible of all full-range food stores (i.e., supermarkets) in Edmonton as of 1999. However, we acknowledge that we may have inadvertedly missed some independent supermarkets. *Research funding was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) and GEOIDE. The authors thank postdoctoral fellow Dr. Nairne Cameron, and student research assistants Vladimir Yasenovskiy, Julia Healy, Nicoleta Cutumisu, Jared Hewko, Mark Pickersgill, Sherry Diehlman, and Kris Ridell for their assistance in the research. We wish to note that the term “unsupportive local food environments,” which we use in this paper, was kindly suggested by one of the referees. We also thank the five anonymous referees for their insightful comments on this paper.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.256
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it