Individual and Household Food Insecurity Reports by Adolescents and Parents Lack Agreement in Rural and Urban Mexican Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the degree of agreement between adolescents’ reported individual food insecurity (FI) with their parents reported household FI. This is a cross-sectional study with 118 adolescents (15.76 ± 1.65 y) and their parents who were recruited from a rural area in Oaxaca (n = 60) and an urban area in Queretaro (n = 58), Mexico. Household FI was assessed in parents using the Latin American and Caribbean Food Security Scale (ELCSA), whereas individual adolescents’ FI was assessed with a scale specific for children/adolescents. Cohen's Kappa estimates were calculated to measure agreement between parents’ and adolescents’ FI, and using Landis and Koch criteria for interpretation. Household FI reported by the parents was 47.5% (34.7% mild and 17.8% moderate + severe), compared to 83.1% (43.3% mild and 39.9% moderate + severe) among adolescents. In both Querétaro and Oaxaca, reported individual FI on the adolescents (75.9% and 90%, respectively) was higher than parents’ reported household FI (37.9% and 67%, respectively). Overall, the Kappa score showed a lack of agreement between the reported parents’ household FI and the adolescents’ individual FI (mild FI, κ = 0.04; moderate FI, κ = 0.02; severe FI κ = 0.16; p > 0.05). Similarly, a lack of agreement between the reported FI of the parents and the reported FI of the adolescents was found separately in Queretaro (mild FI, κ = 0.001; moderate FI, κ = .06; p > 0.05) and Oaxaca (mild FI κ = 0.10; moderate FI κ = −0.06; severe FI κ = 0.10; p > 0.05). The findings of the present study suggest that the experience of FI in adolescents lacks agreement with the household experience, even when assessed in different contexts (rural/urban), and that adolescents FI experiences might be higher than their parents’. No funding sources.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".