MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391870857 · doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2024.103204

What North American retail food environment indices miss in Guatemala: Cultural considerations for the study of place and health

2024· article· en· W4391870857 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yulia E. Chuvileva, Arie Manangan, Aiken Chew, George W. Rutherford, Marcela Barillas-Basterrechea, Joaquín Barnoya, Patrick N. Breysse, Heidi M. Blanck, Leandris Liburd

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Geography · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicUrban Agriculture and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFP7 International CooperationUniversity of California, San FranciscoCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of HealthDeutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale ZusammenarbeitEmory UniversityAndrew W. Mellon Foundation
KeywordsIndigenousGeographyContext (archaeology)Index (typography)MarketingBusinessAdvertisingSocioeconomicsSociologyEcologyComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated the cross-context validity and equivalence of the US- and Canada-originated Retail Food Environment Index (RFEI) and modified RFEI (mRFEI) against a retail food environment dataset from the indigenous-majority city of Quetzaltenango (Xela), Guatemala. The RFEI/mRFEI failed to identify 77% of retailers and misclassified the healthiness of 42% of the remaining retailers in Xela, inaccurately labeling the city a food swamp. The RFEI/mRFEI are not currently suitable for mapping retail food environments in places like Quetzaltenango. Alternative functional and temporal classifications of retail food environments may provide measures with greater contextual fit, highlighting important cultural considerations for the study of place and dietary 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied GeographySame topicUrban Agriculture and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207