MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6982711900

Is urban agriculture associated with food security and nutritional status of preschool-aged children among low- income-peri-urban households of Lima, Peru?

2009· dissertation· en· W6982711900 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2009
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University
KeywordsFood securityMalnutritionAnthropometryUrban agricultureFood consumptionAgricultureFood insecurityUrban community
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the peri-urban slums of Lima, food insecurity and child malnutrition are prevalent. Urban agriculture (UA) is a coping strategy to help poor urban households meet food needs. This study investigated relationships between UA and food security, and children's diets and nutritional status among poor peri-urban households of Lima. Caregivers (n=197) of young children (9-71 mo.) were recruited from 40 community kitchens. Household sociodemographic, food security, UA activity, child health and anthropometric data were documented. The results revealed no differences between UA and non-UA households in household food security, children's nutritional status or diets. However, stratification of UA activity size into small, medium and large revealed greater frequency of consumption of animal source foods among children of large scale UA households, and decreased child height-for-age z-scores in small scale UA households, but no differences in food security. These findings suggest UA of sufficient volume may contribute to improving children's diets.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies→French-language works237,207→