Gender Disparities in Perceived Life Satisfaction within Food Insecure Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experience of food insecurity (FI) may be lived differently by men and women; little is known about gender differences in perceived life satisfaction (LS) at the same levels of FI. It is hypothesized that FI is a strong determinant of low LS and that at the same FI level, women will report lower perceived LS than men. Preliminary analysis used data from 12 Asian and 4 Middle Eastern (ME) countries collected by the Gallup World Poll in 2014, a nationally representative survey of adult individuals worldwide. Cross tab analyses and multiple logistic regression were used to investigate whether being food insecure and being female were risk factors for low LS, controlling for age and marital status. Two dichotomous indicators, LS and FI, were created: one using a single question adapted from The Cantril Self‐Anchoring Striving Scale; and another based on results of the Food Insecurity Experience Scale. FI was significantly associated with low LS in all 16 countries explored (OR: 2.06‐5.43). Contrary to the hypothesis, in 3 out of 4 ME countries women were significantly less likely than men to report low LS (OR: .478‐.602) at the same FI level. Similarly, in all but 2 Asian countries women were less likely than men to report low LS at the same FI level, with statistically significant ORs < 1.0 in 7 countries (OR:.64‐.79). Exploratory analysis shows women were more likely to be FI than men in all except 2 countries. Perceptions of life satisfaction differ within food insecure populations, notably between genders. This calls for continued research on why LS is viewed differently by men and women, what the consequences are then for FI populations, and what implications exist for policies aimed at promoting food security.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".