Perceptions of food insecurity and access to programs among elderly females living in Colombo, Brazil: Qualitative investigation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vulnerable women, especially those who are responsible for their households, often face difficulties in reaching food security in developing countries when compared to men, especially in Africa, Latin America and Caribbean countries. Data from Brazil between 2017 and 2018 reveals the lack of equity between men and women concerning food insecurity, with a higher percentage among women-headed households in contrast to male-headed households. To mitigate this situation, Brazil has developed many food security programs focused on vulnerable groups. In this paper, we report the results of research conducted with women who reside in a low-income, urban community in Colombo, southern Brazil. The study aimed at highlighting the women’s perceptions of the main factors leading to food insecurity, as well as the main barriers and facilitators in accessing food security programs in their community. Methodology involved a mixed-method triangulation approach. 30 women were interviewed through an instrument protocol with opened and closed-ended questions about their health profile, food practices, food insecurity perceptions and participation on food security programs. Results revealed that low income, associated with domestic violence, work overload, less years of study were perceived as barriers to achieve appropriate income and food security. Facilitators to this group’s participation in food security programs were associated with family support, living with relatives, culinary skills and being enrolled with health and social care. As barriers, the study found that living alone, being an older woman with disabilities or younger and low-educated WHH without family financial support, with insufficient comprehension about food security programs dynamics, not pursuing adequate home space to store recyclables were factors that prevented this group´s. It can be concluded that these programs increased the quality and variety of food practices and worked as a mitigating factor for inequalities in food and health.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".