MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6945284314 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6355786

Understanding Food Access in Flint: An Analysis of Racial and Socioeconomic Disparities

2022· other· en· W6945284314 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusSocioeconomic statusRacial compositionCensus tractAfrican americanRace (biology)Population

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary objective of this study was to describe the food landscape of Flint, Michigan, and the surrounding townships. We investigated the relationship between the location of food outlets and the racial composition of census tracts. We collected data from multiple sources; however, Data Axle, a repository of information on the U.S. and Canadian businesses, was our primary data source. Data were collected and verified between September 2020 and December 2021. The final fact-checking was completed in June 2022. We used ArcGIS 10.8.1 and SPSS Version 28 to map and analyze the data. We conducted negative binomial regression analyses to identify the difference in the likelihood of finding food retailers in census tracts where the percentage of Black residents was low and those where the percentage of Blacks was high. The article examines 1,137 food retailers in the study area: 407 were in Flint, and the remainder in the surrounding townships. Restaurants—especially fast food and take-out establishments—dominated the food environment. In addition, small groceries and convenience stores proliferated in the grocery store category. The racial composition of the census tracts mattered. Census tracts in which more than 40% of the residents are Black have a mean of 7.6 food outlets. In comparison, census tracts in which 40% or less of the residents are Black have a mean of 11.3 food outlets; the difference is significant. Census tracts with a high percentage of Blacks also had significantly fewer restaurants. The results of this study show Flint’s food landscape to be more complex and robust than described in earlier studies. It underscores the point that researchers should not rely solely on documenting the presence of supermarkets or traditional grocery stores when addressing food insecurity and food access. In the case of Flint, such food outlets comprise only 2.2% of the food landscape. Focusing exclusively on these food retailers misses several important types of food venues that residents rely on to secure food. This siloed approach also ignores the resilience and ingenuity of residents to respond to limited access to traditional food retailers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.000

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 head0.246
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207