MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040546832 · doi:10.1177/0144739420935964

Food insecurity among public administration graduate students

2020· article· en· W3040546832 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniel J. Mallinson

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching Public Administration · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPenn State Harrisburg, Pennsylvania State University
KeywordsAccreditationFood insecurityAdministration (probate law)ConversationQuarter (Canadian coin)Graduate studentsPsychologyMedical educationPublic relationsFood and drug administrationPolitical scienceFood securityPedagogyAgricultureMedicineEnvironmental healthGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food insecurity is a pressing concern for students in higher education. Much of the conversation surrounding this problem, however, focuses on undergraduate students. But some research finds the problem extends to graduate students. This study asks the question of how food insecurity may be affecting graduate students in public administration. A pilot study in a Network of Schools of Public Policy, Affairs, and Administration-accredited program reveals that almost one quarter of respondents are food insecure. This includes one in five students who are completing their degrees online. The survey also found an important divergence between the types of programs food-insecure students are willing to use and those to which food-secure students are willing to contribute. Given the effects of food insecurity on academic success and degree completion, this study has important implications for public administration programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.359
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.118 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTeaching Public AdministrationSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207