Food banks, welfare, and food insecurity in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – Similar to the recent emergence of food banks in other affluent nations, the genesis and ultimate entrenchment of food banks in Canada has been tightly intertwined with the dismantling of the welfare state. Through an examination of Canadian data, the authors elucidate the implications of entrenching voluntary, extra-governmental, charitable food assistance programs as an adjunct to publicly funded social assistance programs. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – Publicly available food bank reports, population health survey data, and the results of a study of low-income families in Toronto are reviewed to examine the food security status of social assistance recipients and their use of food banks. Findings – In 2012, 70 percent of households in Canada who were reliant on social assistance were food insecure. Social assistance recipients comprise at least half of food bank clientele and have done so for as long as this information has been tracked, but the assistance provided by food banks appears insufficient to alter households’ food insecurity. Although food banks currently distribute over 200 million pounds of food annually, the scale of their operations pales in comparison to the food needs of those who seek their help. Originality/value – In the 30 years since food banks began in Canada, there has been considerable research into this response, as well as extensive population monitoring of food insecurity. Canada provides an informative case study of an affluent country's long-term dependency on charitable food assistance and the impact this has on the food insecurity of those reliant on social assistance programs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".