<i>The Basic Shelf Experience:</i> A Comprehensive Evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Basic Shelf Experience is a program designed to assist people living on limited incomes to make better use of their food resources. The purpose of this research was to learn if the Basic Shelf Experience program helps such people to 1. utilize food resources more effectively and 2. cope, through group support, with poverty-associated stressors that influence food security. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to evaluate the program objectives. Participants completed a questionnaire at the beginning and end of the six-week program. The questionnaire asked about their food access, food security, and feelings about themselves. Participants returned for a focus group discussion and completed the questionnaire again three months after the program ended. The focus group was designed to elicit information about perceived changes, if any, attributed to the program. Forty-two people completed the questionnaires pre-program and 20 post-program; 17 participated in the three-month follow-up session. While results from quantitative data analysis indicate that program objectives were not met, qualitative data provide evidence that the program did achieve its stated objectives. Our results suggest such programs as the Basic Shelf Experience can assist people living on limited incomes to achieve 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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".