Children-and-Partner’s Food Preferences and Role of Woman as Caregiver: Key Elements of Food Choice Linked to Social Environment in a Consumer Population of Hermosillo City
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The main objective was to identify determinants of food choice linked to the community food environment in a marginalized consumer population in the city of Hermosillo, Mexico. The specific objectives were to develop group interviews with women and to frame the data analysis within the field of research in food and nutrition security. In this qualitative study design, we employed the focus group technique to ask participants “How do you decide which foods to obtain for your family's diet?”. To investigate further we asked, “What are those reasons that explain the selection of those foods?” Women who regularly attended a community center localized in a neighborhood with a very high grade of urban marginalization participated in the focus groups. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and three distinct methods were used to perform analysis: (1) content analysis (2) data organization, using software QSR NVivo, in relation to five dimensions of food and nutrition security: affordability, accessibility, acceptability, food quality, and care; and (3) triangulation between five co-authors (A.C.N., P.B.C., A.D.C.P., G.E.P.A., and M.I.O.V.). From May to November of 2019, four focus groups were conducted by a single facilitator in two community centers of Hermosillo (n = 27 participants). Reasons that explained the participant's food choices within the community food environment and that showed the highest number of mentions in the interviews were identified in relation to acceptability factors: children's food preferences, partner's food preferences, all household-members’ food preferences. The following extract reflects the main study findings: “When I can't do a certain thing it is because it's very expensive, but if there is a way, even if it's a little… for example, my middle-aged son really likes peppers and he eats them alone. So, I know that when I go to the store, I have to bring at least one, for him to eat other things.” The study of food choice in this group of women denotes that their role as caregiver of food and nutrition in relation to their children-and-partner's food preferences are key elements of food decision-making processes, preceding the socioeconomic factors and constraints, they certainly face. Institutional small grant C.I.A.D., A.C.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".