Availability and affordability of healthy and less healthy food in Nova Scotia: where you shop may affect the availability and price of healthy food
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to examine the availability and price of healthier compared with less healthy foods by geography, store category and store type for convenience stores, and by store size for grocery stores in Nova Scotia. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study that examined differences in the overall availability and price of healthier compared to less healthy foods in grocery and convenience stores in Nova Scotia. The Nova Scotia Consumer Food Environment project was part of a larger initiative of the Nova Scotia government (Department of Health and Wellness) to assess the food and beverage environment in Nova Scotia in 2015/16. SETTING: Four geographic zones (Nova Scotia Health Authority Management Zones) in Nova Scotia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of forty-seven grocery stores and fifty-nine convenience stores were selected from a list of 210 grocery stores and 758 convenience stores in Nova Scotia to ensure geographic and store type representation in our sample. RESULTS: Findings indicate that rurality had a significant effect on food availability as measured by the Nutrition Environment Measures Surveys (NEMS) score (P < 0·01); there was a higher availability of healthy foods in rural compared to urban areas for convenience stores but not grocery stores. Healthier foods were also more available in chain stores compared to independent stores (P < 0·01) and in large stores compared to small and medium stores (P < 0·001 and P < 0·01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The availability of and accessibility to less healthy foods in Nova Scotia food environment suggests that there is a need for government policy action to support a food environment that contributes to healthier diets.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".