MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906155198 · doi:10.36939/cjur/vol27no1/art112

Identifying Food Swamps Based on Area-Level Socioeconomic Patterning of Retail Food Environments in Winnipeg, Canada

2018· article· en· W2906155198 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Martine Balcaen, Joni Storie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of urban research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicUrban Agriculture and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSwampSocioeconomic statusGeographyFood securitySocioeconomicsBusinessAdvertisingEnvironmental healthAgricultureMedicineSociologyPopulationEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A gap in Canadian food environment research concerning Winnipeg’s food swamps is addressed using geographical assessment of socio-demographic factors. Food swamp locations were identified using (1) a composite index of socioeconomic deprivation, (2) restaurant accessibility (Euclidean distance to nearest restaurant), and (3) restaurant clustering across 5740 Dissemination Blocks (DBs) in Winnipeg. Restaurants included fast food (FFR), sit-down (SDR) and coffee shop establishments combined (ALL). DBs with high deprivation levels, close restaurant access, and signi0 cant clustering of restaurants were identi0 ed as food swamps. Significant differences in restaurant access were observed between low and high socioeconomic deprivation levels, where the most socioeconomically deprived populations in Winnipeg had easier access to highly clustered restaurants. A total 3.74 km2 of Winnipeg was designated as food swamps (ALL), impacting 10,053 (1.6%) people. We conclude that a breadth of policies is required to address food security in Winnipeg, as ~65% of the food swamps coincide with food deserts or food mirages observed by Wiebe et al. (2016).

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of urban researchSame topicUrban Agriculture and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207