The Relationship between Food Banks and Household Food Insecurity among Low-Income Toronto Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Étant donné l’absence de politiques publiques précises face au problème de l’insécurité alimentaire des ménages au Canada, les banques alimentaires restent la solution la plus courante, malgré les questions qui se posent au sujet de leur efficacité. En effet, parmi 371 familles à faible revenu de Toronto que nous avons interviewées dans le cadre de cette étude, 75 % avaient vécu de l’insécurité alimentaire, mais seulement 23 % avaient eu recours à une banque alimentaire; et, pour la plupart des utilisateurs de banque alimentaire, l’insécurité alimentaire était un problème chronique grave. Parmi les raisons qui font que les familles vivant de l’insécurité alimentaire n’ont pas recours à une banque alimentaire, notons une certaine réticence à demander la charité, mais aussi un accès difficile à ces banques pour diverses raisons. Ces résultats remettent en question le rôle que les gouvernements fédéral, provinciaux et territoriaux semblent donner aux organismes caritatifs comme moyens de réduire l’insécurité alimentaire, et soulignent la nécessité de politiques publiques claires en cette matière.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".