Bibliographic record
Abstract
As an issue that affects a significant portion of the Canadian population, food security must be addressed in public health policy and research. Decision-making for food security is a complex task that needs to take into account a diverse range of issues including production, processing, distribution, access, consumption, and waste management. This approach to policymaking for food security, known as food systems analysis, makes use of a large amount of geospatial data. Public health informatics can offer some potential answers to handling and using this large amount of information. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief introduction to Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and how they are used in public health, particularly for food systems analysis. A hypothetical scenario that envisions using a type of spatial analytic tool, called Spatial On-Line Analytic Processing (Spatial OLAP or SOLAP), for public health decision-making is also introduced. In describing both GIS and spatial OLAP, a case for incorporating food systems analysis into public health practices is made.
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 | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.011 |
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".