Charitable and Community Food Access in Greater Victoria: Understanding the Lived Experience of Mothers and Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food insecurity affects 9.6% of Canadians, meaning that individuals and families are unable to access or consume a sufficient or adequate diet quality in socially acceptable ways. Previous research has shown that in Canada, mothers and caregivers are more likely to experience food insecurity, which has negative effects on mental and physical health outcomes, social positionality, and wellbeing for them and their families. As a response to increasing food insecurity in the global North, food access services have been emerging since the 1980s in attempts to remediate the experience of food insecurity; however, there has been debate surrounding the efficacy of food access services. This research analyzes the experience of mothers and caregivers with dependents in Victoria BC who use food access services, including food banks, community food models, or food hamper services. This research argues that food access services can be improved by adopting a community-focused right to food approach in Greater Victoria to further assist mothers and caregivers in need. From the interview data of five participants, results showed that three main themes emerged with regards to experience with food insecurity in Victoria, and 15 suggestions were provided for food access organizations based on results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".