(Murradambirra Dhangaang - Make Food Secure) Aboriginal Community and Stakeholder Perspectives on Food Insecurity in Urban and Regional Australia: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Food insecurity affects one in five Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people residing in non-remote environments. Inequalities in diet contribute to the differential impact on diet-sensitive chronic diseases and the related burden of disease among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. This study aimed to describe Aboriginal community and stakeholder perspectives on food insecurity to get a better understanding of the key factors driving this issue and recommendations for potential solutions in urban and regional Aboriginal communities in Australia. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 44 participants who were purposively selected. This included Aboriginal people in two communities and both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal stakeholders from local food relief agencies, food suppliers, schools, and government. A conceptual framework was developed from food insecurity literature and we used the sensitizing concepts of availability, affordability, accessibility and acceptability or the lack thereof of healthy food to elicit interview responses. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically. Results: All participants felt strongly that food insecurity was a major problem experienced in the local Aboriginal communities. Five core areas impacting on food security identified: trapped in financial disadvantage; gaps in the local food system; limitations of non-Aboriginal food relief services; on-going impacts of colonization; and maintaining family, cultural and community commitments and responsibilities. Conclusions: This study found Aboriginal families in urban and regional Australia are experiencing food insecurity on a regular basis, which is impacted by a range of socio-economic, environmental, systemic and cultural factors, as reported by the participants. Our findings highlight the need to address system level changes in the food environment and acknowledge Aboriginal culture and food preferences while considering the development of programs to alleviate food insecurity among urban and regional communities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".