MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296078704 · doi:10.12927/hcq.2022.26892

Can the Healthcare System Improve Food Security? A Need for Collaborative Community Partnerships

2022· article· en· W4296078704 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kathryn Wiens, Meghan O'Neill, Robert J. Redelmeier, Sahr Wali, Anjum Chagpar, Sané Dube, Lori Diemert, Camilla Michalski, Brooke Ziebell, Sheldomar Elliott, Leslie Anne Campbell, Laura C. Rosella, Andrew Boozary

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Quarterly · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaMaple Leaf FoodsCoalition for Research in Women's HealthPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneral partnershipFood securityFood insecurityBusinessHealth securityHealth carePublic relationsBest practiceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental healthNursingPublic healthMedicinePolitical scienceFinance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened the food insecurity crisis in Canada, and existing supports have been largely insufficient to meet the food needs of communities. In response to increasing reports of food insecurity among Toronto residents during the pandemic, the Food RX program was developed as a collaborative initiative between FoodShare Toronto - a local, community-based food justice organization - and the University Health Network, a large university-affiliated hospital network in downtown Toronto, ON. This commentary describes the Food RX program, highlights the lessons learned during its early implementation and offers a set of recommendations for building community partnerships moving forward.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.037
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0370.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.019
Scholarly communication0.0180.028
Open science0.0050.018
Research integrity0.0290.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.207
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare QuarterlySame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207