Intersectional Analysis of Food Insecurity for 2S/LGBTQIA+ Communities in Canada and Implications for Dietetic Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right to food is a fundamental human right, as established in international conventions and declarations. However, Canada has not explicitly protected the right to food in its Charter or National Food Policy. Food insecurity is a multifaceted issue requiring collaboration across different policy arenas and jurisdictions such as healthcare, housing, social assistance, and agriculture. For Two-Spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, and other sexually and gender diverse (2S/LGBTQIA+) populations, intersecting forms of discrimination and barriers to health, including ingrained cisheteronormativity, must also be considered. We approach the topic of food insecurity among 2S/LGBTQIA+ populations and the associated policy implications through the lens of Kimberle Crenshaw’s critical theory of intersectionality. Intersectionality theory recognizes that marginalized and polymarginalized groups experience discrimination along multiple axes. Policies which fail to recognize this serve to distort polymarginalized people’s lived experiences with issues such as food insecurity and may result in their legal and structural erasure. We aim to peel back the layers of policies affecting 2S/LGBTQIA+ Canadians experiencing food insecurity to reveal points of intersection that may have been rendered functionally invisible. First, we will describe the current national policy context related to food security and 2S/LGBTQIA+ communities. Then, we will undertake a multi-axes analysis to attempt to illuminate the complex and multi-dimensional experiences of 2S/LGBTQIA+ populations living with food insecurity, using Nova Scotia as a regional case study example. We conclude by exploring the implications for dietetic practice across health and food systems in improving the health of 2S/LGBTQIA+ populations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".