A scoping review of traditional food security in Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Food insecurity is a public health concern. The pillars of food security include food access, availability and utilisation. For some indigenous peoples, the pillars may focus on traditional foods. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping review on traditional foods and food security in Alaska. DESIGN: Google Scholar and the High North Research Documents were used to search for relevant primary research using the following terms: “traditional foods”, “food security”, “access”, “availability”, “utilisation”, “Alaska”, “Alaska Native” and “indigenous”. RESULTS: Twenty four articles from Google Scholar and four articles from the High North Research Documents met the inclusion criteria. The articles revealed three types of research approaches, those that quantified traditional food intake (n=18), those that quantified food security (n=2), and qualitative articles that addressed at least one pillar of food security (n=8). CONCLUSIONS: Studies that estimate the prevalence of traditional food insecurity in Alaska are virtually absent from the literature. Instead most studies provide a review of factors related to food security. Research investigating dietary intake of traditional foods is more prevalent. Future research should include direct measurements of traditional food intake and food security to provide a more complete picture of traditional food security in Alaska.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".