<i>Nutritional Quality and Price</i> Of University Food Bank Hampers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Food insecurity appears to be a growing problem for post-secondary students, but little study has been made of the 51 campus-based food banks that exist. In 2003-04, the University of Alberta Campus Food Bank (CFB) distributed hampers intended to supply four days of food to 630 unique clients, of whom 207 (32.8%) were children. The nutritional adequacy of food hampers and cost saving to students were evaluated in the current study. METHODS: Hampers prepared for one adult, and for one adult with one child, were nutritionally evaluated and scored for number of servings according to Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating. Two types of hampers were evaluated: those containing only non-perishable items, and those containing non-perishable and perishable items. Hamper contents were priced to establish the cost saving to students. RESULTS: The study revealed that a student with one child would receive up to 58.02 Canadian dollars worth of food in a hamper that contained perishable items. All hampers met the recommended minimum servings for each food group, but were very low in fat and protein from animal sources. CONCLUSIONS: Because students can obtain hampers only twice each month, the CFB is not the solution to food insecurity on campus. Awareness of the issue of post-secondary student food insecurity needs to be raised.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".