MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132046945 · doi:10.1177/109019810102800408

A Critical Examination of Community-Based Responses to Household Food Insecurity in Canada

2001· article· en· W2132046945 on OpenAlexaffabout
Valerie Tarasuk

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education & Behavior · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPovertyEmpowermentFood securityEconomic growthFood insecurityPublic healthEnvironmental healthBusinessPolitical scienceEconomicsMedicineGeographyNursingAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past two decades, household food insecurity has emerged as a significant social problem and serious public health concern in the "First World." In Canada, communities initially responded by establishing ad hoc charitable food assistance programs, but the programs have become institutionalized. In the quest for more appropriate and effective responses, a variety of community development programs have recently been initiated. Some are designed to foster personal empowerment through self-help and mutual support; others promote community-level strategies to strengthen local control over food production. The capacity of current initiatives to improve household food security appears limited by their inability to overcome or alter the poverty that under-pins this problem. This may relate to the continued focus on food-based responses, the ad hoc and community-based nature of the initiatives, and their origins in publicly funded health and social service sectors.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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 score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.982

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.011
Science and technology studies0.0240.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.001
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.398
GPT teacher head0.510
Teacher spread0.113 · 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

Citations179
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Education & BehaviorSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207