Developing the DIGIFOOD Dashboard to Monitor the Digitalization of Local Food Environments: Interdisciplinary Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Online food delivery services (OFDS) enable individuals to conveniently access foods from any deliverable location. The increased accessibility to foods may have implications on the consumption of healthful or unhealthful foods. Concerningly, previous research suggests that OFDS offer an abundance of energy-dense and nutrient-poor foods, which are heavily promoted through deals or discounts. OBJECTIVE: In this paper, we describe the development of the DIGIFOOD dashboard to monitor the digitalization of local food environments in New South Wales, Australia, resulting from the proliferation of OFDS. METHODS: Together with a team of data scientists, we designed a purpose-built dashboard using Microsoft Power BI. The development process involved three main stages: (1) data acquisition of food outlets via web scraping, (2) data cleaning and processing, and (3) visualization of food outlets on the dashboard. We also describe the categorization process of food outlets to characterize the healthfulness of local, online, and hybrid food environments. These categories included takeaway franchises, independent takeaways, independent restaurants and cafes, supermarkets or groceries, bakeries, alcohol retailers, convenience stores, and sandwich or salad shops. RESULTS: To date, the DIGIFOOD dashboard has mapped 36,967 unique local food outlets (locally accessible and scraped from Google Maps) and 16,158 unique online food outlets (accessible online and scraped from Uber Eats) across New South Wales, Australia. In 2023, the market-leading OFDS operated in 1061 unique suburbs or localities in New South Wales. The Sydney-Parramatta region, a major urban area in New South Wales accounting for 28 postcodes, recorded the highest number of online food outlets (n=4221). In contrast, the Far West and Orana region, a rural area in New South Wales with only 2 postcodes, recorded the lowest number of food outlets accessible online (n=7). Urban areas appeared to have the greatest increase in total food outlets accessible via online food delivery. In both local and online food environments, it was evident that independent restaurants and cafes comprised the largest proportion of food outlets at 47.2% (17,437/36,967) and 51.8% (8369/16,158), respectively. However, compared to local food environments, the online food environment has relatively more takeaway franchises (2734/16,158, 16.9% compared to 3273/36,967, 8.9%) and independent takeaway outlets (2416/16,158, 14.9% compared to 4026/36,967, 10.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The DIGIFOOD dashboard leverages the current rich data landscape to display and contrast the availability and healthfulness of food outlets that are locally accessible versus accessible online. The DIGIFOOD dashboard can be a useful monitoring tool for the evolving digital food environment at a regional scale and has the potential to be scaled up at a national level. Future iterations of the dashboard, including data from additional prominent OFDS, can be used by policy makers to identify high-priority areas with limited access to healthful foods both online and locally.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".