"You're Totally on Your Own": Experiences of Food Allergy on a Canadian University Campus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the prevalence of food allergies within Canada estimated at approximately 7%, researchers have sought a variety of perspectives to inform our understanding of food allergy risk and perception (Soller et al., 2012). However, university students' perception of food allergies is an area of little research that needs prompt attention in light of a recent death (2015), due to anaphylactic shock, of an 18-year old Canadian university student (Vuchnich, 2015b). Since the perception that the prevalence of food allergies is increasing, investigation into the risks involved when transitioning into university with a food allergy are needed (Harrington et al., 2012). This study explores the experiences and perceptions of food allergic undergraduate students of the University of Waterloo, Canada. The two main objectives include: (1) to understand how food allergic university students experience and perceive food allergy risk on campus; and (2) to understand their management and coping strategies. Five focus groups were conducted with a total of twenty participants. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for subsequent thematic analysis. Results are organized into three themes: perceptions and experiences, coping and management, and changes and improvements. The key findings indicate that participants are experiencing difficult transitions into university and social isolation as a result of their food allergy, which has caused them to engage in risk-taking behaviours. This sets the stage for serious policy implications that the university should undertake in order to create a context that is inclusive for students with food allergies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".