MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119131420 · doi:10.1300/j477v01n03_03

A Social Ecological Perspective of the Influential Factors for Food Access Described by Low-Income Seniors

2007· article· en· W2119131420 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Keller, John J. M. Dwyer, Christine Senson, Vicki Edwards, Gayle Edward

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntrapersonal communicationFood securityInterpersonal communicationLow incomePerspective (graphical)Affect (linguistics)Consumption (sociology)PsychologyEnvironmental healthBusinessSocioeconomicsSocial psychologyEcologySociologyAgricultureMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the factors that affect food access and consumption by seniors will lead to improved comprehension and measurement of food security for this subgroup. Semi-structured interviews with low-income, community-living seniors (n = 18) were tape-recorded and transcribed. Interviews were coded and themes were identified using a constant comparison method of analysis. Applying a social ecological framework, three spheres of influence were described: intrapersonal (e.g., health and budget), interpersonal (e.g., informal assistance and socializing) and environmental (e.g., city transportation and grocery stores). Although preliminary, these results demonstrate the importance of interpersonal and environmental factors on food access and security for seniors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hunger & Environmental NutritionSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207