MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2783527069 · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.38.1.05

Status report - FoodReach Toronto: lowering food costs for social agencies and community groups

2018· article· en· W2783527069 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Paul Coleman, John Gultig, B. Emanuel, Marianne E. Gee, Heather Orpana

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaPublic Health Agency of CanadaToronto Public Health
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMetropolitan areaProcurementCensusBusinessPurchasingEconomic growthPurchasing powerCommunity organizationPrivate sectorSocioeconomicsPolitical scienceGeographyMarketingEnvironmental healthSociologyPopulationEconomicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toronto has the largest absolute number of food insecure households for any metropolitan census area in Canada: of its 2.1 million households, roughly 252 000 households (or 12%) experience some level of food insecurity. Community organizations (including social agencies, school programs, and child care centres) serve millions of meals per year to the city's most vulnerable citizens, but often face challenges accessing fresh produce at affordable prices. Therefore in 2015, Toronto Public Health, in collaboration with public- and private-sector partners, launched the FoodReach program to improve the efficiency of food procurement among community organizations by consolidating their purchasing power. Since being launched, FoodReach has been used by more than 50 community organizations to provide many of Toronto's most marginalised groups with regular access to healthy produce.

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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0460.007

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations4
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in CanadaSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207