Associations between household food insecurity and health outcomes in the Aboriginal population (excluding reserves).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aboriginal people are more vulnerable to food insecurity and morbidity than is the Canadian population overall. However, little information is available about the association between food insecurity and health in Aboriginal households. DATA AND METHODS: Data from the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey-Nutrition were used to examine the relationships between household food security and self-reported health, well-being and health behaviours in a sample of 837 Aboriginal adults living off reserve. Household food security status was based on Health Canada's interpretation of the United States Household Food Security Survey Module. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify significant relationships, while adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: An estimated 29% of Aboriginal people aged 18 or older lived in food-insecure households. They were more likely to report poor general and mental health, life dissatisfaction, a very weak sense of community belonging, high stress and cigarette smoking, compared with their counterparts in food-secure households. When age, gender and household education were taken into account, respondents from food-insecure households had significantly higher odds of poor general health, high stress, life dissatisfaction, and a very weak community belonging. INTERPRETATION: Reductions in household food insecurity may improve the health and well-being of Aboriginals living off-reserve.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".