MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131745336 · doi:10.1080/19320248.2014.962772

Food Sharing Practices in Households Receiving Supplemental Foods for the Treatment of Moderate Acute Malnutrition in Ethiopian Children

2015· article· en· W2131745336 on OpenAlexaff
Crystal D Karakochuk, Tina van den Briel, Derek Stephens, Stanley Zlotkin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalnutritionMedicineEnvironmental healthConsumption (sociology)Demography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this article is to evaluate food sharing practices in households receiving corn–soya blend (CSB) and ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF) in southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian children with moderate acute malnutrition from 10 supplementary feeding sites received CSB (1413 kcal/day) or RUSF (500 kcal/day). Data on food sharing and consumption practices were collected from 1125 households via structured questionnaires administered by trained local health professionals after 6 weeks of treatment. CSB was shared among a significantly higher number of family members (1.9 ± 1.0) compared to RUSF (0.1 ± 0.4; P < .001). In only 14% of CSB households, children consumed equal or more than three quarters of the ration, compared to 98% of RUSF households. Only 9% of RUSF households reported food sharing, the majority (86%) of whom were children in the same household under 5 years of age. Comparatively, CSB was shared within the household with a greater number of family members and in greater quantities compared to RUSF. CSB was reported to be widely consumed by all members of the household, whereas RUSF was sparingly shared and only with children under 5 years of age in the household.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hunger & Environmental NutritionSame topicChild Nutrition and Water AccessFrench-language works237,207