MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387854557 · doi:10.11604/pamj.2012.12.81.1738

A qualitative pilot study of food insecurity among Maasai women in Tanzania

2012· article· en· W4387854557 on OpenAlexaff
Carol Fenton, Jennifer Hatfield, Lynn McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPoverty, Education, and Child Welfare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaasaiTanzaniaFood insecuritySocioeconomicsEnvironmental healthGeographyQualitative researchFood securityMedicineSociologyAgricultureSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Food insecurity is an ongoing threat in rural sub-Saharan Africa and is complicated by cultural practices, the rise of chronic conditions such as HIV and land use availability. In order to develop a successful food security intervention program, it is important to be informed of the realities and needs of the target population. The purpose of this study was to pilot a qualitative method to understand food insecurity based on the lived experience of women of the Maasai population in the Ngorongoro Conservation Area of Tanzania. METHODS: Short semi-structured qualitative interviews with 4 Maasai women. RESULTS: Food insecurity was present in the Maasai community: the participants revealed that they did not always have access to safe and nutritious food that met the needs of themselves and their families. Themes that emerged from the data fell into three categories: Current practices (food sources, planning for enough, food preparation, and food preservation), food Insecurity (lack of food, emotions, coping strategies, and possible solutions), and division (co-wives, food distribution, and community relationships). CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggested the presence of food insecurity in the Maasai community. Larger sample studies are needed to clarify the extent and severity of food insecurity among this population. Having a detailed understanding of the various aspects of the food insecurity lived experience could inform a targeted intervention program.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.279
GPT teacher head0.562
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicPoverty, Education, and Child WelfareFrench-language works237,207