MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048571674 · doi:10.1097/fch.0000000000000273

A Conceptual Model of Rural Household Food Insecurity

2020· review· en· W3048571674 on OpenAlexaff
Angela Piaskoski, Kristen Reilly, Jason Gilliland

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily & Community Health · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood securityFood insecuritySocial capitalPsychological interventionCoping (psychology)Social connectednessStressorPsychologyEconomic growthBusinessSociologySocial psychologyEconomicsGeographyAgricultureSocial scienceClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review explores experiences of household food insecurity in rural areas of developed countries. A search of 5 databases resulted in 32 peer-reviewed articles for inclusion. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis to broaden the understanding of rural household food insecurity. Elements of food security (ie, availability, accessibility, acceptability, adequacy, and agency) were exemplified across the literature. In addition, 4 key themes were found: exercising human capital, realizing social capital, coping with compounding stressors, and navigating complex systems. This review demonstrates the need for interventions that improve social connectedness, individual coping skills, and system navigation.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.008
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.662
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.148 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations28
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily & Community HealthSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207