A Community-Based Approach to Integrating Socio, Cultural and Environmental Contexts in the Development of a Food Database for Indigenous and Rural Populations: The Case of the Batwa and Bakiga in South-Western Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comprehensive food lists and databases are a critical input for programs aiming to alleviate undernutrition. However, standard methods for developing them may produce databases that are irrelevant for marginalised groups where nutritional needs are highest. Our study provides a method for identifying critical contextual information required to build relevant food lists for Indigenous populations. For our study, we used mixed-methods study design with a community-based approach. Between July and October 2019, we interviewed 74 participants among Batwa and Bakiga communities in south-western Uganda. We conducted focus groups discussions (FGDs), individual dietary surveys and markets and shops assessment. Locally validated information on foods consumed among Indigenous populations can provide results that differ from foods listed in the national food composition tables; in fact, the construction of food lists is influenced by multiple factors such as food culture and meaning of food, environmental changes, dietary transition, and social context. Without using a community-based approach to understanding socio-environmental contexts, we would have missed 33 commonly consumed recipes and foods, and we would not have known the variety of ingredients' quantity in each recipe, and traditional foraged foods. The food culture, food systems and nutrition of Indigenous and vulnerable communities are unique, and need to be considered when developing food lists.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".