Food security in Toronto's shelters for the homeless:\nPolicy alternatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Toronto Shelter Standards were introduced in 2002 as a policy document to aggregate the expectations of social services offered by City funded shelters. The Standards have not been revised in the last 12 years to accommodate the changes in service provisioning at Toronto Shelters. Moreover, the current edition does not provide sufficient details in their Food Safety and Nutrition section to address the delivery of food services and programming at \nshelters. Numerous Toronto based studies have uncovered hunger and nutritional deficiencies amongst homeless populations. This paper offers recommendations focused on the food and nutrition section of the Standards. Various agency employees at Hostel Services, Toronto Public Health and City-funded shelters were interviewed for insights into current processes, advantages, and concerns. An analysis of current literature and interview data lead to numerous findings. The Food Safety and Nutrition section requires the expansion of their mandatory food training, stronger interagency collaboration, meal and nutrition focused review system, more efficient and locally focused procurement process, and improved meal service structure. The paper offers potential policy amendments and solutions that can address the current hunger and malnutrition that is affecting homeless individuals in Toronto within the shelter system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.001 |
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".