MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417490346 · doi:10.1080/19320248.2025.2604106

Outcome Evaluation of a Smart Food Locker Pilot at a Faith-Based Community Food Pantry

2025· article· en· W4417490346 on OpenAlexaff
Marissa J. Spear, Gunner Gilbert, Stella Mutoni, Monique N. Jones, Chelsea Barker, Jenni A. Vaughan, Bonnie Faitak, Emily English, Sheila Fleischhacker, Krista Langston, Pearl A. McElfish, Christopher R. Long

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsImpact
FundersWalmart FoundationCenters for Disease Control and PreventionNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
KeywordsOutcome (game theory)Food insecurityHealthy foodFood security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores evaluation of a food locker pilot implemented at a faith-based community food pantry. Thirty-one clients were recruited to use the locker for a 9-week period. Client pre- and post-surveys monitored demographics, food and nutrition security, fruit and vegetable intake, and food pantry usage. Key informant interviews were conducted with clients to assess facilitators and barriers to usage. Results provided preliminary evidence that locker offerings increased client household access to fruits and vegetables. Findings will inform improvements to the food locker program and guide practitioners looking to implement food lockers in charitable food locations.

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 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.249
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hunger & Environmental NutritionSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207