MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6902512118 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6019689

Murradambirra Dhangaang (make food secure): Aboriginal community and stakeholder perspectives on food insecurity in urban and regional Australia

2022· other· en· W6902512118 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood securityFood insecurityStakeholderGovernment (linguistics)Food systemsIndigenousLocal governmentConceptual framework

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background It is widely acknowledged that the invasion by colonial powers of the Australian continent had profound and detrimental impacts on Aboriginal Communities, including food security. Policies of successive governments since European arrival have since further exacerbated the situation, with food insecurity now affecting 20–25% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Food insecurity contributes to long-term impacts on health, in particular diet-sensitive chronic diseases. This study aimed to describe Aboriginal community and stakeholder perspectives on food insecurity to get a better understanding of the key contributing factors and recommendations for potential strategies to address this issue in Aboriginal communities in urban and regional Australia. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 44 participants who were purposively selected. This included Aboriginal people in two communities and both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal stakeholders from local food relief agencies, food suppliers, schools, and government in an urban and regional location in NSW. A conceptual framework was developed from literature on food security, and sensitizing concepts of availability, affordability, accessibility and acceptability or the lack thereof of healthy food were used to elicit responses from the participants. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically. Results All participants felt strongly that food insecurity was a major problem experienced in their local Aboriginal communities. Five core areas impacting on food security were identified: trapped in financial disadvantage; gaps in the local food system; limitations of non-Aboriginal food relief services; on-going impacts of colonization; and maintaining family, cultural and community commitments and responsibilities. Participants suggested a number of actions that could help ease food insecurity and emphasized that Aboriginal values and culture must be strongly embedded in potential programs. Conclusions This study found Aboriginal families in urban and regional Australia are experiencing food insecurity on a regular basis, which is impacted by a range of socio-economic, environmental, systemic and cultural factors, as reported by the participants. Study findings highlight the need to address system level changes in the food environment and acknowledge Aboriginal history, culture and food preferences when considering the development of programs to alleviate food insecurity among Aboriginal people.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicBiochemical Analysis and Sensing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207