The Occupational Development of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living Related to Food Resource Management with Individuals Living in Poverty.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Living in poverty is an everyday experience for approximately 14.8% of Americans (Coleman-Jensen, Gregory, Rabbitt, & Singh, 2015). This experience often entails living in housing that does not meet minimal code requirements, such as running water or heat, remaining in neighborhoods full of violence, lacking grocery stores, parks, and places of employment, and decreased access to education. For many individuals this experience also involves food insecurity, which is defined as lacking consistent access to, or intake of, nutritional food (Coleman-Jensen, Gregory, & Rabbit, 2015). The circumstances that surround being in poverty are multidimensional and complex, as are the consequences of growing up and/or living in poverty. This presentation will draw from a participatory action research (PAR) project designed to help those living in poverty learn to maximize their food resources. This PAR project culminated in a seven-week occupation-based program targeting interests, values, skills, and resources that surround food resource management. This presentation will describe the program and results with the intent of initiating a discussion regarding the occupational development or lack thereof basic IADL skills, which support food security for those living in poverty.\nMethods: Pre-post program measures included the Making Meals Performance Measure and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Data from 16 participants who completed the seven-week program were analyzed using t-tests and the Wilcoxin Signed Rank Tests. Results indicate statistically significant improvements in the participants’ abilities to make meals with specific food items as well as perceived performance and satisfaction in tasks associated with food resource management (Schmelzer & Leto, in press). While the findings from the program are encouraging, this PAR project also illuminated various occupational challenges that face those living in poverty.\nImplications for Occupational Science: Basic IADL skills associated with food resource management require trial and error, repetition, and continued exposure to varying opportunities in order to develop. Competence in these skills contributes to an individual’s ability to obtain and maintain food security and is expected at a societal level. Many individuals living in poverty exist in environments with limited human, as well as physical resources. This appears to significantly hinder their occupational development of these IADL skills. Wilcock (2006) discussed options for doing and its impact on occupational capacities, self-efficacy beliefs, and identity construction. Further discussion and exploration of occupational development and occupational deprivation (as well as the transactions which occur within a life of poverty) are needed to guide research in this area.\nDiscussion Questions:\nWhat methods could be used to investigate occupational deprivation, atrophied occupational capacities, and/or the occupational challenges to developing health promoting lifestyles for those living in poverty?\nIf occupation is a process at the level of the situation (Dickie, Cutchin, & Humphry, 2006) what does that mean for the occupational development of individuals living in generational poverty? How can occupational science contribute to the identification of the occupational needs of this population?
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it