MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399321641 · doi:10.1080/19320248.2024.2355926

Characterizing Profiles of Alternative Food Source Utilization Among New Food Bank Users in Urban, Semi-Urban, and Rural Settings in Quebec (Canada)

2024· article· en· W4399321641 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Elsury Johanna Pérez, Mabel Carabalí, Geneviève Mercille, Marie‐Pierre Sylvestre, Federico Roncarolo, Louise Potvin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalCentre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux du Centre-Sud-de-l'Île-de-Montréal
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistry of Health, British Columbia
KeywordsBusinessFood insecurityFood securityRural areaGeographyAgricultural economicsEconomicsPolitical scienceAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to characterize alternative food source (AFS) utilization profiles among newly registered food bank (FB) users in urban, semi-urban, and rural settings. A cross-sectional analysis was conducted on the baseline data of the Pathways Study, a cohort of newly registered FB-users in Québec (2018–2020). Participants aged between 18–63 responsible for household food acquisition (n = 990) were included. Latent class analysis was used to classify FB-users into three latent AFS utilization profiles: FB-Exclusive-users, FB-Fruit/Vegetable-Market-users, and Multiple-AFS-users. The socio-demographic factors related to AFS utilization profiles vary across settings. These differences should be considered to improve AFS access.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hunger & Environmental NutritionSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207