Graduate Student Food Insecurity on Campus: A Hidden Hurdle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food insecurity is characterized by an uncertainty or inability to acquire sufficient amounts of food needed to meet the dietary requirements of household members, due to a lack of financial resources within the household (Polsy & Garriguet, 2022). Post-secondary students are a particularly vulnerable population, with a disproportionate number reporting having experienced food insecurity during their studies (El-Zein et al., 2019). Such tendencies are concerning as correlations between food insecurity and various adverse outcomes influencing the health and well-being of post-secondary students have consistently been documented in the literature. However, very little is known regarding the specific experiences of graduate students. To this end, this thesis seeks to bridge the gaps in our understanding through a three-phase approach. Phase one of this thesis assessed changes in neighborhood food environment quality pre- and post-pandemic using data from 39 supermarkets located in Ottawa. The findings suggest that food affordability and food quality have decreased post-pandemic with disparities persisting between high and low socioeconomic status neighborhoods in Ottawa. Phase two consisted of a survey of 363 anglophone graduate students attending the University of Ottawa revealing that 48% were food secure, 13.5% of graduate students were marginally food insecure, 19.5% were moderately food insecure, and 18.7% were severely food insecure. Furthermore, food insecure students were more likely to report a negative influence on their academic performance, course load, in-class participation, attendance, and sense of belongingness to graduate studies community. Finally, phase three made use of semi-structured interview with 14 food insecure graduate students which revealed four key themes namely 1) Graduate students understood food insecurity as a lack of proximity, affordability, quality, and time; 2) Food insecure students experienced adverse physical and mental health outcomes, lower socialization, and academic outcomes; 3) Institutional factors hindered help-seeking behaviours; and 4) Food insecure advocated for holistic programs on campus to mitigate food insecurity. Together, the findings of the thesis provide insights into the experience of food insecurity amongst graduate students which may be used to adapt policies and approaches used by universities in better supporting students.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".