COVID-19 and Challenges in Food Accessibility and Security in the Priority Neighborhood, Toronto: We Need What Further
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provincial and federal governments provided emergency funding to local community organizations to reduce food insecurity and improve food accessibility to people affected by COVID-19 by giving free food support. The study explored the challenges of people and the local organizations in receiving and providing free food support and what further was needed to achieve food accessibility and security in the priority neighborhood. Nine representatives of the local community organizations, 15 volunteers, 10 community members (food recipients) participated in the community conversation or the extensive group discussion. They shared their experiences about challenges in food accessibility during COVID-19, and what we further needed to improve the food accessibility in the priority neighborhood. Two note-takers obtained data from the community conversation, and it was a qualitative study and used a thematic approach to analyze the data and interpretation. Lack of information of free food, language issues, the social stigma attached to requesting free food support, and fear of COVID-19 were obstacles for community members seeking free food support. The community organisations, on the other hand, lacked knowledge of those who truly needed food assistance, adequate transportation, enough room to store food, and sufficient numbers of dedicated and qualified volunteers to assist with food distribution. Additionally, there was a lack of funds for community organisations to supply people with food. The local community organizations needed an assessment to understand the available resources so that local organizations could use the resources to improve food accessibility in the community. Furthermore, the organizations required coordination and cooperation each other and extended food funding to affected families. In addition, the local organizations needed to work with community gardens, community kitchens, and food banks to support and meet the community's demands for improving food accessibility. People and local organizations had information and communication, social, structural and systemic, and financial challenges for adequate food accessibility in the priority neighborhood during COVID-19. The study also indicated what was needed to make adequate food accessible for the community.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 teacher head, 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".