Household Food Security and Produce Intake and Behaviors of Adult Mothers Living on Prince Edward Island and Using Family Resource Center Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prince Edward Island is characterized by low household food security compared to other Provinces, especially among female lone parents.Low produce intake may be linked to chronic disease and has been associated with household food insecurity.This study examined differences in produce intake by food security status of adult mothers aged 18 and older with young children living on Prince Edward Island and using Family Resource Centre services.The main instrument used in this investigation was the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM), a produce intake and behavior-related instrument.The USDA HFSSM was scored using Canadian methods.Descriptive statistics were used to describe the sample.SPSS software was used to tabulate data, and, using SPSS, an ANOVA was used to assess for differences in produce intake among food security groups.Participants (n = 282) were primarily White (n = 262, 92.9%) and married (n = 164, 58.2%).Age ranged from 18-53 years (30 ± 5 years, n = 280).Regarding household adult food security of participants (n = 281), 197 (70.1%) experienced food security during the previous 12 months, while 84 (29.8%) experienced food insecurity (food insecure, moderate [n = 46, 16.4%]; food insecure, severe [n = 38, 13.5%]).Total produce (p < .001),fruit (p < .001),and vegetable (p = .001)differed by household food security; mothers who support.Family support programs complement existing services, build networks and linkages, and advocate for policies, services and systems that support families' abilities to raise healthy children.Family support programs work in partnership with families and communities to meet expressed needs.Family support programs focus on the promotion of wellness and use a prevention approach in their work.Family support programs work to increase opportunities and to strengthen individuals, families and communities.Family support programs operate from an ecological perspective that recognizes the interdependent nature of families' lives.Family support programs value and encourage mutual assistance and peer support.Family support programs affirm parenting to be a life-long learning process.Family support programs value the voluntary nature of participation in their services.Family support programs promote relationships based on equality and respect for diversity.Family support programs advocate non-violence to ensure safety and security for all family members.Family support programs continually seek to improve their practice by reflecting on what they do and how they do it.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".