Food Security Status of Indigenous Peoples in Canada According to the 4 Pillars of Food Security: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food insecurity is a significant public health problem for Indigenous peoples in Canada. A comprehensive literature review is needed to organize the evidence according to the 4 pillars of food security (i.e., availability, access, utilization, and stability) and identify gaps in the published literature on this topic. Therefore, in this scoping review we aimed to summarize the published research discussing any of the 4 pillars of food security among Indigenous peoples in Canada. We conducted a literature search of the following databases: Ovid Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science (Web of Knowledge), and CINAHL, as well as the Indigenous Studies Portal (up to June 19, 2021). Population-based studies of any design were included, except for review-style articles. Articles published in languages other than English were also excluded. Of the 4687 studies identified by the database searches, 91 met our inclusion criteria. Evidence from these studies indicates that all dimensions of food security among Indigenous peoples in Canada have been impacted. Lack of availability of both traditional and market foods is highlighted among Inuit and First Nation communities. Economic disadvantages, high food prices, and lack of access to transportation are major factors affecting the accessibility pillar of food security. Major factors affecting the utilization pillar of food security are the loss of traditional knowledge and skills, lack of knowledge on market foods, low quality of market foods, and food safety issues. Climate change has affected all 4 pillars of food security among Indigenous peoples. These findings suggest that resolving food insecurity issues among Indigenous peoples in Canada, especially those living in remote communities, requires a culturally specific integrated approach targeting food availability, food cost, food knowledge, food safety, and food quality.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".