MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W100246506

Food habits of Canadians: comparison of intakes in adults and adolescents to Canada's food guide to healthy eating.

2001· article· en· W100246506 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Linda Jacobs Starkey, Louise Johnson‐Down, Katherine Gray‐Donald

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnvironmental healthFood groupFood intakeHealthy eatingFood guideGerontologyDemographyPhysical activityPhysical therapy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207