MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626997790 · doi:10.5430/wje.v7n3p50

Exploring the Lives of Vulnerable Young People in Relation to Their Food Choices and Practices

2017· article· en· W2626997790 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karolina Gombert, Flora Douglas, Karen McArdle, Sandra Carlisle

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of AberdeenScottish GovernmentRural and Environment Science and Analytical Services Division
KeywordsFutures contractFoodwaysSocioeconomic statusPsychologyFood securityFace (sociological concept)Social psychologySociologyDevelopmental psychologyGerontologyMedicineGeographyDemographySocial sciencePopulationAgricultureBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The interdisciplinary Foodways and Futures project (2013-2016) is based on a pilot study which found noimprovement in the nutritional state of formerly homeless young people (16-25), now in supported accommodationat a charitable youth organization. Because a healthy food intake during adolescence is important, and because youngpeople with socioeconomic lower backgrounds face difficulties in maintaining a healthy diet (Beasley at al., 2005), Iinvestigated how the young people themselves experience their relationship to food. In this paper I explore linksbetween the lived experience before and during their stay with the organization of this vulnerable group, and theirfood choices and practices. The study illustrates the ways in which those choices and practices may appearnutritionally undesirable, but are nevertheless linked to the young people’s search for ontological security and socialconnectedness, in their new living environment. In this, I draw on and extend Schlossberg’s (1981) transition theoryin order to better understand the rationales underlying an individual’s subjective food choices.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of EducationSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207