The Nutritional Content of Food in Carceral Institutions: A Systematic Review of Quantitative Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nutritional content of food in carceral institutions is important because it influences weight gain and health during incarceration. This systematic review assessed the available quantitative data and nutritional analyses of food in carceral institutions. Methodology is based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement with four phases (identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion). Nine articles were selected. Most carceral institutions provided adequate nutrition for micronutrients, except for vitamin D (inadequate) and sodium (excessive). Most menus followed recommendations for macronutrients. Food from the commissary stores is high in calories, sugar, fat, and sodium. Most menus are adequate according to Dietary Reference Intakes. Changing menus drastically to meet nutritional targets may lead to consuming more food from commissary, potentially leading to poorer eating. For some menus, minor adjustments could bring the nutritional content closer to recommendations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".