Food habits of Canadians: comparison of intakes in adults and adolescents to Canada's food guide to healthy eating.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over 25 years have elapsed since national food and nutrient intake data became available in Canada. Our goal was to describe present dietary intakes based on sociodemographic and 24-hour recall dietary interviews with adults and adolescents from households across the country. Within a multistage, stratified random sample of 80 enumeration areas, 1,543 randomly selected adults (aged 18-65) were enrolled in the study; 178 adolescents within the sampled households also participated. A comparison of food intake with Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating indicated that only males aged 13-34 met the minimum recommended intake levels for all four food groups. Mean milk products intake was below the minimum recommended level for all age groups of females and for men aged 35-65 years. Adolescent girls had low intakes of meat and alternatives. Daily grain product intakes were below five servings for women aged 50-65, as were vegetable and fruit intakes for women aged 18-40. Food choices from the "other foods" group contributed over 25% of energy and fat intake for all age and gender groups. These up-to-date data will be useful to dietitians, nutrition researchers, industry, and government in their efforts to promote Canadians' continued progress toward meeting food intake recommendations.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".