Having Enough Cultural Food? A Qualitative Exploration of the Experiences of Migrants in a Regional Area of Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of food security encompasses the ability of individuals, households and communities to acquire food that is healthy, sustainable, affordable, appropriate and accessible. Despite Australia’s current ability to produce more food than required for its population, there has been substantial evidence demonstrating that many Australians struggle to feed themselves, particularly those from a cultural and linguistically diverse (CALD) background. This qualitative phenomenological study investigated the experiences of food security among migrants in a regional area of Australia (Tasmania). 33 semi-structured interviews were conducted with Tasmanian migrants. The interviews were analysed thematically using Nvivo 10.0 and three main themes emerged: (1) migrant’s experiences of food security in Tasmania; (2) the factors that influence migrant food security in Tasmania; and (3) acculturation strategies. Participants were satisfied with their current food security in Tasmania but they still encountered some challenges in the availability, accessibility and affordability of healthy and cultural food. Factors that influenced their food security were educational background, the language barrier, socioeconomic status, geographical isolation, and their cultural background. Migrants managed to adapt to the new food culture by using different acculturation strategies. Migrants residing in Tasmania encounter a diverse number of challenges pertaining to food security and use different food security strategies while acculturating to the new environment. These findings may inform other migrant communities in Australia, relevant non-government organisations and government departments and suggest strategies to address food security challenges among migrants.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".