Prevalence and sociodemographic risk factors related to household food security in Aboriginal peoples in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Canada's Aboriginal population is vulnerable to food insecurity and increasingly lives off-reserve. The Canadian Community Health Survey, Cycle 2.2 Nutrition, was used to compare the prevalence and sociodemographic correlates of food insecurity between non-Aboriginal and off-reserve Aboriginal households. DESIGN: Food insecurity status was based on Health Canada's revised interpretation of responses to the US Household Food Security Survey Module. Logistic regression was used to assess if Aboriginal households were at higher risk for food insecurity than non-Aboriginal households, adjusting for household sociodemographic factors. SETTING: Canada. SUBJECTS: Households (n 35,107), 1528 Aboriginal and 33 579 non-Aboriginal. RESULTS: Thirty-three per cent of Aboriginal households were food insecure as compared with 9 % of non-Aboriginal households (univariate OR 5.2, 95 % CI 4.2, 6.3). Whereas 14 % of Aboriginal households had severe food insecurity, 3 % of non-Aboriginal households did. The prevalence of sociodemographic risk factors for household food insecurity was higher for Aboriginal households. Aboriginal households were more likely to have three or more children (14 % v. 5 %), be lone-parent households (2 1 % v. 5 %), not have home ownership (52 % v. 31 %), have educational attainment of secondary school or less (43 % v. 26 %), have income from sources other than wages or salaries (38 % v. 29 %), and be in the lowest income adequacy category (33 % v. 12 %). Adjusted for these sociodemographic factors, Aboriginal households retained a higher risk for food insecurity than non-Aboriginal households (OR 2.6, 95 % CI 2.1, 3.2). CONCLUSIONS: Off-reserve Aboriginal households in Canada merit special attention for income security and poverty alleviation initiatives.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".