Food insecurity among adolescent girls who are mothers (10-19 years) in sub-Saharan Africa: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Adolescent girls in resource-constrained settings are vulnerable to sexual exploitation and gender inequities due to poverty, leading to teen motherhood, which is often characterised by stigmatization. Marginalized adolescent mothers may experience stigma in their family, school, community, health, and public services, resulting in poverty, which exacerbates food insecurity. This scoping review will explore the drivers, coping strategies, and the mental, sexual and reproductive health impacts associated with food insecurity among adolescent mothers (ages 10-19 years) in SSA. Methods We will apply the scoping review framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley and further developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute, and the reporting guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) (S1Table). The overall research question is: What are the drivers, coping strategies, and the mental, sexual and reproductive health impacts associated with food insecurity among adolescent mothers (10-19 years) in SSA? In collaboration with a research librarian, search strategies will be developed using text words and subject headings (eg, Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), Emtree) related to adolescent mothers and food insecurity in SSA. We will include quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods, and review studies in our analysis. A thematic analysis will be conducted on the findings, with results presented in both narrative and tabular formats. Ethics and Dissemination Formal ethical approval is not required as we are not collecting primary data. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated at international conferences.
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 | 0.092 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.010 |
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".