Association Between Educational Attainment and EFNEP Participants’ Food Practice Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Examine the association between educational attainment and improvement in food practice outcomes of the California Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP) participants. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 19,089 participants, 92.3% female, 77.2% Hispanic, 19.7% with ≤ sixth-grade education, and 68.9% with incomes ≤ 100% of the federal poverty level. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Improvement in food resource management practices (FRMP), nutrition practices, and food safety practices (FSP). ANALYSIS: Wilcoxon signed rank tests examined pre-post outcomes. Mann-Whitney U tests compared whether participants in the lowest and highest educational attainment quartiles had similar levels of improvement. RESULTS: California EFNEP is associated with improved FRMP (z = -95.33), nutrition practices (z = -94.91), and FSP (z = -92.37); (P < 0.001). Lowest educational quartile was associated with more improvement in FRMP and FSP (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: California EFNEP contributed to improved food practice outcomes for low and high educational attainment participants. Program content and instruction are effective across the education continuum.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".