MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3203421231 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v13n11p35

Home Food Environments of Mothers in South-Eastern Africa and California-An Illustration of Global Extremes

2021· article· en· W3203421231 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emma Scudero, Peggy Papathakis, Andrew Schaffner, Suzanne Phelan

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFHI 360National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsEnvironmental healthGeographySocioeconomicsMedicineDeveloping countryDemographyEconomic growthEconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: The type and availability of food in the home is known to directly shape food intake and weight status, but cross-cultural differences remain poorly documented. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe and compare the home food environments of low-income, childbearing women living in a low-income country (Malawi) and a high-income country (United States). METHODS: A home food environment survey was available in 714 mothers in Malawi (mean BMI 19.5, mean age 22.1 years) and 371 in California (mean BMI 31.8, mean age 28.1 years). RESULTS: Mothers in California vs. Malawi had on average (SD) 22.8 (4.4) vs. 1.2 (1.4) different food items in the home. The women in California had an abundance of fruits and vegetables that were virtually absent in the homes of Malawian women. The most prevalent food in the homes in Californian women was rice (in 97% homes) and in Malawian women was corn flour (in 47% of homes). CONCLUSIONS: Given the global extremes in food availability, efforts to address over and under food availabilities in the homes of childbearing women need to move beyond country centric approaches. It is time to consider maternal and child health as a global priority.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicChild Nutrition and Water Access→French-language works237,207→