MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W120060497 · doi:10.1096/fasebj.21.5.a55

The magnitude and pattern of purchased ready‐to‐eat foods in the diets of rural Ghanaian children

2007· article· en· W120060497 on OpenAlexaff
Esi K Colecraft, Grace S. Marquis, Anna Lartey, O. Sakyi-Dawson, Benjamin Ahunu, Lorna Michael Butler, Helen H. Jensen, Manju B. Reddy, Elisabeth Lonergan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsMorningGeographyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental healthAnimal scienceMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purchase of ready‐to‐eat foods (RTEF) for children is common in urban Ghana but little is known about this practice in rural areas. We collected data on the purchase of RTEF in the past week by caregivers (N=530) of preschoolers living in 6 rural communities in 3 regions of Ghana. About 82% (N=433) of caregivers purchased RTEF in the past week. RTEF were purchased less frequently in northern (2.3 ± 0.1 times/wk) than in forest and coastal communities (3.0 ± 0.1 and 3.1 ± 0.2 times/wk, respectively; p<0.0001). RTEF was purchased most frequently for children in forest communities (56.9 ± 3.3%) and least frequently in northern communities (34.1 ± 3.4%; p<0.05). At least 60% of RTEF purchased for children were obtained in the morning. RTEF for children in forest communities was more likely to contain animal foods than in northern communities (34% vs 16% of the time, respectively; p<0.05). There were regional differences in the time of day when ASF‐based RTEF were given to children (p<0.05). The magnitude and patterns of purchased RTEF have implications for nutrition interventions in rural communities. This was supported through the GL‐CRSP, funded in part by USAID, Grant # PCE‐G‐00‐98‐00036‐00

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicChild Nutrition and Water Access→French-language works237,207→