An Examination of Failed Grocery Store Interventions in Former Food Deserts
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
Background. Implementing food stores in deprived neighborhoods to improve access to healthy food is a debated topic. Aims. To uncover important contributors to the closure of grocery store interventions in urban food deserts. Method. We systematically reviewed both peer-reviewed and gray literature for publications on the failure of grocery store interventions. Results. We found nine articles on six different failed food stores. The reasons stated for closure included low sales, a lack of food retail experience, poor marketing, and difficulty in attracting and retaining a high volume of consumers from the local market. Discussion. Current literature on the topic of the closure of inner-city grocery stores does not have a concise rationale to explain why inner-city grocery store interventions were not successful. Conclusion. We must consider the most appropriate interventions to improve food environments in food deserts using local and national policies to address the social determinants of health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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