Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div><p>Background</p><p>Food insecurity is defined as not having safe and regular access to nutritious food to meet basic needs. This review aimed to systematically examine the evidence analysing the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on food insecurity and diet quality in households with children <18 years in high-income countries.</p><p>Methods</p><p>EMBASE, Cochrane Library, International Bibliography of Social Science, and Web of Science; and relevant sites for grey literature were searched on 01/09/2023. Observational studies published from 01/01/2020 until 31/08/2023 in English were included. Systematic reviews and conference abstracts were excluded. Studies with population from countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development were included. Studies were excluded if their population did not include households with children under 18 years. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood institute (NIH) tool for observational cohort and cross-sectional studies was used for quality assessment. The results are presented as a narrative review.</p><p>Results</p><p>5,626 records were identified and 19 studies were included. Thirteen were cross-sectional, and six cohorts. Twelve studies were based in the USA, three in Canada, one each in Italy and Australia and two in the UK. Twelve studies reported that the COVID-19 pandemic worsened food insecurity in households with children. One study reported that very low food security had improved likely due to increase in benefits as part of responsive actions to the pandemic by the government.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Although studies measured food insecurity using different tools, most showed that the pandemic worsened food security in households with children. Lack of diversity in recruited population groups and oversampling of high-risk groups leads to a non-representative sample limiting the generalisability. Food insecure families should be supported, and interventions targeting food insecurity should be developed to improve long-term health.</p></div>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.420 | 0.116 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".