Food Bank Users in and Around the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, Canada, Are Characterized by Food Insecurity and Poor Produce Intake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the (1) food security status, produce intake, and produce-related behaviors of food bank clients from 4 food banks in and around British Columbia's (BC's) lower mainland; (2) differences in food security status, produce intake, and produce-related behaviors among those 4 food banks; and (3) relationship of food security status to produce intake and produce-related behaviors in food bank clients from 4 food banks in and around BC's lower mainland. Participants (n = 528) attended one of 4 food banks in BC. Overall, only 4.7% of food bank users in our sample lived in food secure households. These data are in stark contrast to Health Canada's 2007–2008 data estimating that food insecurity affected 7.7% of households in BC (4.8% moderately food insecure, 2.9 severely food insecure). Daily vegetable intake (1.7 ± 1.9; n = 474; P = .292), daily fruit intake (1.3 ± 1.6; n = 478; P = .935), and daily total produce intake (3.0 ± 2.9; n = 474; P = .548) were less than Health Canada recommendations, and produce intake worsened with worsening food insecurity. Strategies are needed to improve food bank users' access to adequate foods, especially produce, for an active and healthy life. Though assisting food banks and other charitable agencies in securing wholesome foods may help to improve food access and nutrition outcomes of their clients, improving incomes and access to other resources by individuals and households using charitable food sources is needed to improve food access for all Canadians in a sustainable fashion.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".