MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2167036281 · doi:10.1017/s1474746415000184

Food Bank Usage Is a Poor Indicator of Food Insecurity: Insights from Canada

2015· article· en· W2167036281 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rachel Loopstra, Valerie Tarasuk

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Policy and Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHealth CanadaU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsFood insecurityFood securityPopulationBusinessPsychological interventionEnvironmental healthGeographyAgriculturePsychologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reflects on the insights afforded by the regular measurement and monitoring of household food insecurity in Canada juxtaposed against information on food bank usage in the population. We show that the number and characteristics of people using food banks suggest that this population is a non-representative subset of the food insecure population. We also highlight how the number of people using food banks is insensitive to the level of household food insecurity in the population. Who goes to food banks is a function of the nature of food bank operations and the severity of food insecurity. Representative data on household food insecurity should be regularly collected and utilised to make policy recommendations for interventions to address the problem of insecure food access.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.145
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations113
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSocial Policy and SocietySame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207