Food Security of Temporary Foreign Farm Workers under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program in Canada and the United States: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temporary foreign farm workers (TFWs) are among the most vulnerable and exploitable groups. Recent research shows alarming rates of food insecurity among them. This review explores research focussing on food security of TFWs in Canada and the United States, summarizes findings, and identifies research gaps. Online databases, including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Google Scholar, and government and nongovernment websites, and websites of migrant worker-supporting organizations were searched for peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed papers and reports published between 1966 and 2020 regarding food security of TFWs. Articles reviewed were analyzed to determine publication type, country, year, target population, and main findings. Content analysis was performed to identify major themes. Of 291 sources identified, 11 met the inclusion criteria. Most articles (n = 10) were based on studies conducted in the United States. The prevalence of food insecurity among TFWs ranged between 28% and 87%. From the content analysis, we formulated 9 themes, representing a diversity of perspectives, including access to resources, income, housing and related facilities, food access, dietary pattern and healthy food choices, and migrant's legal status. Instruments reported for the measurement of food security include USDA Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM; n = 8, 72.7%), the modified version of the USDA HFSSM (n = 1, 9%), hunger measure (n = 1, 9%), the modified CDC's NHANES (n = 1, 9%), and 24-h recall, diet history, and/or food-frequency questionnaire (n = 3, 27.3%). Factors impacting food security of TFWs working under the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Programs (SAWPs) in North America are understudied. There is a need to advance research looking particularly at policies and regulatory and administrative aspects of the SAWPs to improve the food security of this cohort. There is also a need for qualitative studies that explore lived experiences and perspectives of TFWs and key informants. Longitudinal studies may be useful to examine various factors, including policy-related, contributing to food insecurity of TFWs over time.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".