Interventions to address household food insecurity in high-income countries
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Household food insecurity is a serious public health concern in high-income countries. Canada and the USA regularly monitor household food insecurity, while in other countries, such as the UK, it has been the rapid rise of food bank usage that has drawn increased attention to this longstanding, but largely overlooked, problem. This review evaluates evidence on interventions intended to reduce household food insecurity in high-income countries. Research on social protection interventions suggests both cash transfers and food subsidies (e.g. the US Supplement Nutrition and Assistance Programme) reduce household food insecurity. In contrast, research on community-level interventions, such as food banks and other food programmes, suggests limited impacts. Although food banks have become a common intervention for food insecurity in high-income countries, evidence suggests their reliance on donations of volunteer time and food make them inevitably limited in the assistance they are able to provide. The stigma people feel using food banks may also make them untenable. Alternatives to, or enhanced, food banks such as community shops or community kitchens, have become common, but evidence also suggests they may be limited in effectiveness if they do not reach people experiencing food insecurity. This review highlights the difficulty of trying to address household food insecurity with community-based food interventions when solutions likely lie upstream in social protection policies.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it