The experiences of people with disabilities who are on persons with disability benefits with regard to food security
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adequate food security is achieved when “food is obtained in a manner that upholds human dignity; food is safe, nutritionally adequate, personally and culturally acceptable; food is sufficient in quality and quantity to sustain healthy growth and development and to prevent illness and disease” (Community Nutritionists Council of BC, 2004, p. 3). Many adults with disabilities are unemployed due to their chronic condition and require the receipt of government sponsored disability benefits. They face unique challenges in sustaining their health and are at higher risk for food insecurity. The purpose of this research was to describe the experiences of people on Persons with Disability (PWD) benefits with regard to attaining adequate food security. Qualitative inquiry was the central defining methodological feature of this research. The data were derived from 16 face-to-face semi-structured interviews. All participants were adults who were currently receiving PWD benefits and living alone (non-institutionalized) in Vancouver, British Columbia. The interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using constant comparative analysis. The three major factors that affected the food security of the participants were 1) living with a low income, 2) living with a disability and 3) living with psychosocial issues. These three factors prevented most of the participants from attaining adequate food security at some level. Those without subsidized housing and with disabilities that affected mobility and energy were worse off in terms of attaining adequate food security. The results of this study will help decision makers and service providers to understand the multiplicity and complexity of factors that are pertinent in addressing food security issues for people on PWD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".