Food insecurity among postsecondary international students: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction International students make significant contributions to their host institutions and countries. Yet research shows that not all international students have the financial means to fend for themselves and meet their financial obligations for the entire study programme. Such students are at significant risk of food insecurity. The objective of this scoping review is to synthesise available information on the factors related to food insecurity among international students studying at postsecondary educational institutions and identify the types of food insecurity interventions that have been implemented to address this issue. Methods and analysis The Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology will be used to guide this scoping review, and we will search the following databases: MEDLINE (through Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), PubMed, ERIC (via Ovid), PROSPERO and ProQuest. The titles, abstracts, and subsequently full texts of the selected papers will then be screened against the inclusion criteria. Data from articles included in the review will be extracted using a data charting form and will be summarised in a tabular form. Thematic analysis will be used to identify common themes that thread through the selected studies and will be guided by the steps developed by Terryet al. Ethics and dissemination Since this project entails a review of available literature, ethical approval is not required. The findings will be presented at academic conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. To make the findings more accessible, they will also be distributed via digital communication platforms.
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 | 0.129 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.018 |
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".