Measurement of household food security in the USA and other industrialised countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the history and current status of household food security measurement. CONCLUSIONS: In the 1980s evidence of rising levels of hunger was a concern for many, but disputed by some, Americans. Acknowledgement and quantification of hunger was hindered by the lack of an accepted definition and measure of hunger. Qualitative research at Cornell provided a conceptual framework, description, definition and survey items for hunger. The Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project developed an instrument used in numerous communities. Based upon these initiatives, widely accepted definitions of hunger and food insecurity, and the US Household Food Security Module for its measurement, now exist. The module classifies households as food-secure, or food-insecure without hunger or with moderate or severe hunger, and contains household-, adult- and child-referent items. Its inclusion in the Current Population Survey (CPS) since 1995 has yielded annual estimates of food insecurity. A six-item short form of the module, for surveys with severe time constraints, classifies households only as food-secure or food-insecure without or with hunger and contains no child-specific items. Surveys using the 18-item or short-form module can compare results with published national data from the CPS. Information about the module is available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/foodsecurity and http://www.fns.usda/fsec. Current research on food security measurement includes measurement of individual food insecurity and hunger, module performance regarding hunger duration and frequency, performance of the module in population sub-groups, and the effect of translations on module meaning and performance. National surveys in Canada, New Zealand and Australia also have measured food security.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".