MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406248790 · doi:10.1017/s1368980024002684

Household water security is a mediator of household food security in a nationally representative sample of Mexico

2025· article· en· W4406248790 on OpenAlexaff
Teresa Shamah‐Levy, Ignacio Méndez‐Gómez‐Humarán, Verónica Mundo‐Rosas, Alicia Muñoz‐Espinosa, Hugo Melgar‐Quiñonez, Sera L. Young

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nutrition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityGlobal Institute for Water Security
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood insecurityFood securityOddsContext (archaeology)Scale (ratio)PovertyGeographyEnvironmental healthSurvey data collectionCovariateLatin AmericansHousehold incomeSocioeconomicsAsset (computer security)DemographyMedicineLogistic regressionEconomic growthEconomicsPolitical scienceAgricultureSociology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Explore the relationship between water insecurity (WI) and food security and their covariates in Mexican households. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study with nationally representative data from the National Health and Nutrition Survey-Continuous 2021 (in Spanish, ENSANUT-Continua 2021), collected data from 12 619 households. SETTING: WI was measured using the Household Water Insecurity Experiences (HWISE) Scale in Spanish and adapted to the Mexican context. Food security was measured using the Latin American and Caribbean Food Security Scale. A generalised path model was used to produce two simultaneous logistical regression equations - WI (HWISE ≥ 12) and moderate-to-severe food insecurity (FI) - to understand key covariates as well as the contribution of WI to FI. PARTICIPANTS: The head of the household, an adult of >18 years of age, consented to participate in the survey. RESULTS: Households experiencing WI were more likely to experience moderate-to-severe FI (OR = 2·35; 95 % CI: 2·02, 2·72). The odds of WI were lower in households with medium (OR = 0·74; 95 % CI: 0·61, 0·9) to high (OR = 0·45; 95 % CI: 0·37, 0·55) asset scores. WI also depended on the region of Mexico. FI is more prevalent in indigenous people (OR = 1·29; 95 % CI: 1·05, 1·59) and rural households (OR = 0·42; 95 % CI: 1·16, 1·73). Notably, wealth and household size did not contribute directly to FI but did so indirectly through the mediating factor of WI. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that there are structural factors that form part of the varied determinants of WI, which in turn is closely linked to FI.

Stored with the screening record, where it is evidence for the labels above.

How this classification was reachedexpand

The three-model screen

all 5,600 screened works →

All three models called this out of scope.

stratum: aff_core · design weight: 5595.24 (the sample is stratified; any rate computed without the weight is wrong)
Claude Opus 4.8OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Cross-sectional analysis of water insecurity as a mediator of household food security in Mexico.

GPT-5.6 (high)OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

It studies household water and food security in Mexico, not research itself.

Grok 4.5OUT
genre: empirical
about Canada: no
confidence: high

Public health analysis of water and food security in Mexico, not research practice.

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)0.003
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 score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.247 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NutritionSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207