MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3062062108 · doi:10.1080/19320248.2020.1807434

Who Is Food Insecure? Political Storytelling on Hunger, Household Food Choices, and the Construction of Archetypal Populations

2020· article· en· W3062062108 on OpenAlex
Catherine L. Mah, Bruce Knox, Meghan Lynch, Lynn McIntyre

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryCommunity Sector Council Newfoundland and LabradorPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsFood insecurityStorytellingPoliticsFood securityHealthy foodPolitical scienceGeographyEconomicsNarrativeBiologyFood scienceAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food insecurity, inadequate access to adequate food due to economic constraints, affects one in eight households. Food insecurity is a serious structural problem affecting health, but dedicated policy action has been limited. In this study, we analyzed causal stories in Canadian political discussion about household food insecurity in provincial and federal Hansard records over two decades. Specifically, we examined patterns of archetypes – dominant characterizations of individuals and populations who experience food insecurity – and how these were used to convey a collective consciousness about 'model' food-insecure persons or groups. Archetypes aligned only with selected evidence of populations actually experiencing food insecurity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.175 · 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