Experiences of food access among disabled adults in Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical access to food is frequently studied using universal measures, like distance to stores, excluding experiences of people who move or travel differently, like disabled people who choose to use mobility aids. Aiming to understand disabling experiences of food access, mobile interviews were conducted with 23 disabled adults who use mobility aids and/or experienced physical barriers to mobility. This study uses a critical ableist studies perspective, looking beyond the effect of the ‘disabled body’ and focuses on relational distances to food, including physical, economic, and social resources that could lead to pathways of disablement. Results highlight intersecting disabling barriers to food access, including socioeconomic barriers and physical barriers within the home, neighbourhoods, transportation, and food destinations and temporal inaccessibility due to construction and inclement weather. These findings suggest the importance of improving and enforcing accessibility standards in public and private places in coordination with addressing socioeconomic disadvantage of disabled people. Points of interestDisabled people experience greater risk of food insecurity.Food insecurity for disabled people could be reduced with increased incomes from disability income sources or through a basic income supplement.Physical barriers to mobility were located within the home, neighbourhoods, transport systems, and food destinations. Limited income often resulted in greater physical barriers to food access (e.g., inadequate housing or transportation) and reduced ability to overcome physical mobility barriers.Disruptions related to construction, weather, or mechanical breakdowns resulted in risks to safety and uncertain food access.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".