“Now we got lots to eat and they’re telling us not to eat it”: understanding changes to south-east Labrador Inuit relationships to food
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Culture, history and social circumstances shape how people understand their relationships to food, what foods are eaten, when, how much and how often. This ultimately shapes overall health. This study aims to connect research about food, culture and health by positioning south-eastern Labrador Inuit understandings of food at the forefront of how we begin to address chronic disease within southeastern Labrador Inuit communities. STUDY DESIGN: This study collected stories about food from 3 generations of men and women who live in the south-east Labrador Inuit community of St. Lewis, Newfoundland and Labrador. METHODS: Qualitative interviews (n=24) and 1 focus group (n=8) were conducted with 3 generations of men and women who were asked to share stories about how they experience and understand their relationships to food. RESULTS: Local plants and animals have historically been used for shelter, clothing and medicines, and their procurement provided opportunities for physical activity, sharing with others and passing along generational knowledge. The historical absence of government services has meant that stable food supplies were unavailable; local sources of food have, until the recent past, been essential for survival. The significant change over a short period, from having to ensure that one has enough to eat and avoiding nutritional deficiencies, to having both healthy and unhealthy food choices constantly available, has required a different "way" of understanding food. CONCLUSIONS: It is imperative that nutrition programs and resources directed towards improving the health of south-east Labrador Inuit take into account how cultural, historical and social circumstances have shaped south-east Labrador Inuit understandings of food.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".