Food System Factors Influencing Dietary Diversity of University Students in Nakuru County, Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increased consumption of a variety of healthy food options plays a critical role in enhancing the nutritional outcomes of university students, as well as improving the agribusiness sector. However, university students face numerous challenges within the university food system, which hinder their ability to maintain healthy eating habits. The current study identified food system factors that influence the dietary diversity of university students. The cross-sectional research design was adopted, and the multistage sampling technique was utilized to select a total of 435 undergraduate students from five universities in Nakuru County. Data was collected through face-to-face interviews using a semi-structured questionnaire. The data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and the Ordered Probit Model with STATA software. The results revealed a mean dietary diversity score (DDS) of 4.31±1.59, with 7.82% of students having a high DDS, 59.77% showing a moderate DDS, and 32.41% demonstrating a low DDS. Factors such as gender, academic workload, food expenditure, food availability, food accessibility, food processing, food prices, nutrition knowledge, food insecurity, and meal planning significantly influenced the dietary diversity of undergraduate students. The findings underscore the need for effective interventions tailored to enhance the dietary diversity of university students. Emphasis should be placed on the availability and accessibility of a variety of healthy food options within universities at an affordable price. Conversely, policies to limit the consumption of foods high in salt, sugar, and fat should be implemented. Meal plans should be promoted, and nutrition awareness among university students should be enhanced through educational programs. Therefore, the study contributes to the growing body of knowledge by identifying specific food system factors that critically influence the dietary diversity of university students. Furthermore, the findings reinforce existing research that highlights the importance of food system factors in shaping the consumption patterns of university students.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".