Food Security Status in Relation to Co-operative Enrolment Among University of Waterloo Undergraduate Students: A Cross-Sectional Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Co-operative (co-op) education facilitates development of workplace competencies but may have unintended consequences for financial stability and food security. This study examined the association between co-op program enrolment and food security status among a sample of undergraduate students. Financial insufficiency and strategies to cope with it were also characterized. Methods: Cross-sectional data were collected from 167 co-op and 89 non-co-op students at the University of Waterloo from January to March 2019. Logistic regression assessed associations between co-op program enrolment and food insecurity. Results: Twenty-four percent of co-op and 39.3% of non-co-op students lived in moderately or severely food insecure households. Adjusting for confounders, the odds of living in moderately or severely food insecure households were lower among co-op students (adjusted odds ratio: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.27–0.97), though no association was observed when marginal food insecurity was included within the food insecure category. One-quarter (26.3%) of co-op students and 38.2% of non-co-op students reported financial insufficiency, which they tried to cope with by asking parents or friends for assistance or initiating paid work. Conclusions: Co-op program enrolment was weakly associated with lower odds of living in moderately or severely food insecure households, and food insecurity prevalence was high overall. Efforts are needed to alleviate food insecurity among postsecondary students.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".