Review of Food and Nutrition Services Provided by Community-based Organizations Serving People with HIV in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the status of food and nutrition programming in community-based HIV organizations in Canada. METHODS: A telephone survey was administered to 80 community-based HIV organizations asking about characteristics of food and nutrition programs and the perceived program gaps. RESULTS: The majority of organizations had programs directed at improving food access through meals, food banks, community kitchens or cooking classes, food vouchers, gardens, and street vans. Almost half of the organizations (n = 39) provided nutrition counselling by a registered dietitian or nurse, and the majority also provided referrals to other food and nutrition services in the community. Most organizations would like to have more food-related programming, including: more frequent provision of nutritious and fresh food options, methods to make better use of available food, transportation and grocery vouchers, more staff dedicated to food programs, and improved food preparation and storage infrastructure. CONCLUSION: Although community-based HIV organizations provide a range of food and nutrition programs, they face challenges due to inadequate resources. Decision makers should provide more funding for these programs; however, they must be augmented with other supports such as adequate housing, income, and addiction counselling. Dietitians can help organizations maximize the impact of their limited resources and can advocate for systemic changes to enhance determinants of health for people living with HIV.
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 | 0.004 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.039 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".