MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625131604 · doi:10.15353/cfs-rcea.v4i1.204

Student food insecurity at the University of Manitoba

2017· article· en· W2625131604 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Meghan Entz, Joyce Slater, Annette Aurélie Desmarais

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsFood insecurityFood securityPopulationGraduate studentsAffect (linguistics)SocioeconomicsEnvironmental healthGeographyEconomic growthPolitical sciencePsychologySociologyMedicineEconomicsAgriculturePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While rates of food insecurity among various sectors of Canadian population are well documented, food security among post-secondary students as a particularly vulnerable population has emerged in recent years as an area of research. Based on a survey of 548 students in the 2015/16 school year, this article examines the extent of food insecurity among a population of undergraduate and graduate students at the University of Manitoba. Our study reveals that 35.3% of survey respondents face food insecurity. 23.5% of these students experience moderate food insecurity, while 11.8% are severely food insecurity. Using chi-square tests and regression analysis, we compare these rates with various demographic indicators to assess which students are at greater risk of food insecurity, factors contributing to food insecurity, and its effect on their student experience, their health and their lives in general. In contemplating funding for post-secondary institutions and increases in tuition fees, provincial governments need to consider how this will affect student food security

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations32
Published2017
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l alimentationSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207