Analysis of the presentation of Nutritious Food Basket research on PHU websites in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Nutritious Food Basket (NFB) is the only locally generated, standardized measure of the cost of a healthy diet gathered annually in Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion (OMHP), 2010). This study analyzed if and how research using the Nutritious Food Basket (NFB) protocol is presented and mobilized on the websites of public health units (PHU) for health equity advocacy in Ontario. A coding scheme developed by the authors was used to conduct a content analysis of public health unit websites. In total, 35 PHU websites were analyzed. Thirty-two out of 35 websites included some information about local NFB research, while three had none. The ways in which Nutrition Food Basket research is included, framed, and leveraged for advocacy on public health unit websites varies widely along the categories assessed for this research. Despite fairly consistent messaging that defines food insecurity as an income-related issue alongside statements that food banks are inadequate solutions, a surprising number of PHU calls for action include urging the public to donate to or volunteer for local food banks and other food charities in response to food insecurity. In most cases, Ontario PHU websites are not used as effectively as they could be for sharing NFB results or for promoting advocacy activities based on NFB research.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".