MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2778603375 · doi:10.9745/ghsp-d-17-00203

Food Security and Nutrition Outcomes of Farmer Field Schools in Eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo

2017· article· en· W2778603375 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Health Science and Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsKimberly-Clark (Canada)
FundersOffice of Food for PeaceUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsDemocracyFood securityFood insecurityPolitical scienceAgricultural economicsEconomic growthGeographySocioeconomicsBusinessEconomicsAgriculturePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> Food and nutrition security in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo are threatened by political instability and chronic poverty. The Jenga Jamaa II project, implemented between 2011 and 2016 in South Kivu Province, aimed to improve household food security and child nutritional status using various intervention strategies, including farmer field school (FFS) programs. <h3>Objective:</h3> To characterize the changes in agricultural production techniques, household food security, and child nutritional status associated with participation in FFS programs. <h3>Methods:</h3> We used a community-matched design to select FFS intervention and control households from 3 health zones in which the project was operating. Data on food security (Household Dietary Diversity Score [HDDS] and Household Food Insecurity Access Scale [HFIAS]) and child anthropometry were collected semiannually for 3.5 years in both groups. Additional data on agricultural practices were collected annually in the FFS group only. Focus groups with FFS staff and beneficiaries were conducted in the final project year. Statistical analyses included basic descriptive statistics such as paired <i>t</i> tests and analysis of covariance; regression models using a bootstrap were applied to generate <i>P</i> values and confidence intervals while accounting for differences between groups. <h3>Results:</h3> The study enrolled 388 FFS beneficiaries and their households in the intervention group and 324 non-FFS households in the control group. FFS participants reported increasing the number of different agricultural techniques they used by an average of 2.7 techniques over the project period, from 5.1 in 2013 to 7.9 in 2016 (<i>P</i>&lt;.001). The mean HDDS and HFIAS improved more in the FFS group than in the control group (mean difference between intervention and control for HDDS was 0.9 points and for HFIAS was −4.6 points; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). However, the prevalence of child stunting (60.2% intervention vs. 58.8% control) and underweight (22.3% intervention vs. 29.8% control) were similar in both groups at endline (<i>P</i>&gt;.05). <h3>Conclusion:</h3> Although FFS participants diversified their agricultural production strategies and experienced improvements in household food security, there was not a positive impact on child nutritional status. In this food-insecure context, improvements in agricultural production alone are unlikely to significantly change child nutritional status—a health outcome with a complex, multilevel causal chain.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.168
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.352 · 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