MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2783087630 · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.38.1.05f

Rapport d'étape - FoodReach Toronto : réduire le coût des aliments pour les organismes sociaux et les groupes communautaires

2018· article· fr· W2783087630 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Paul J. Coleman, John Gultig, Bárbara Emanuel, Marianne E. Gee, Heather Orpana

Bibliographic record

VenuePromotion de la santé et prévention des maladies chroniques au Canada · 2018
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toronto compte plus de ménages en situation d’insécurité alimentaire que les autres régions métropolitaines de recensement au Canada : sur 2,1 millions de ménages, environ 252 000 (soit 12 %) vivent dans une certaine forme d’insécurité alimentaire. Les organismes communautaires (organismes sociaux, programmes scolaires, garderies) servent des millions de repas par année aux citoyens les plus vulnérables de la ville, mais rencontrent souvent des difficultés à obtenir des produits frais à prix abordable. C'est dans ce contexte, afin d’améliorer l’efficience de l’approvisionnement alimentaire des organismes communautaires en consolidant leur pouvoir d’achat, que le Bureau de santé publique de Toronto, en collaboration avec des partenaires des secteurs public et privé, a créé en 2015 le programme FoodReach. Depuis sa création, FoodReach a permis à plus d’une cinquantaine d’organismes communautaires d'obtenir un accès régulier à des produits sains pour de nombreux groupes parmi les plus marginalisés de Toronto.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePromotion de la santé et prévention des maladies chroniques au Canada→Same topicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations→French-language works237,207→