A systematic review of the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP) in community food environmental research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Geospatial models can facilitate the delineation of food access patterns, which is particularly relevant for urban planning and health policymaking. Because community food environmental studies use different analysis units or study scales, the rigor and consistency of their evaluations cannot be ensured. This issue is known as the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP). The paper provides a systematic review of past literature on place-based community food environmental research using different analysis units or geospatial models as they pertain to the MAUP. We identify these key findings: (1) the ZIP code zone is not recommended as an appropriate analysis unit for modeling community food access, as it did not have significant correlations with health indicators; (2) using a circular buffer of less than 0.5 km around household locations is most likely to reveal health correlations, compared with network buffers or container-based measures; (3) to reveal health effects of the community food environment, it is recommended to focus in selected regions or partitions of a study area with similar socioeconomic statuses, such as the central city or low socioeconomic status areas; (4) for studies utilizing a single statistical unit or distance measure, it is suggested to discuss the existence of the MAUP, such as evaluating the sensitivity of the model to the change of the unit or the distance measure. By highlighting the MAUP, this paper has policy implications—given that geospatial modeling of food accessibility provides support for health policy intervention, using different metrics may lead to different interpretations of health disparities and could thus misinform policy decisions. Therefore, any assessment of community food environments that may potentially lead to a policy change should consider the effects of the MAUP.
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 | 0.061 | 0.245 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".