MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W125627381 · doi:10.1096/fasebj.21.6.a1046

Caregivers’ Income Generation Activities and Diversity of Animal Source Foods in Children’s Diets in Ghana

2007· article· en· W125627381 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Kobina Christian, Anna Lartey, Esi K Colecraft, O. Sakyi-Dawson, Benjamin Ahunu, Grace S. Marquis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicChild Nutrition and Water Access
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)Low incomeRural areaDietary diversitySignificant differenceSocioeconomicsGeographyMedicinePolitical scienceSociologyAgricultureFood security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engagement in income generation activities (IGA) that involve animal source foods (ASF) may influence children’s intake of animal products through increased availability of ASF in the home and increased income that can be used to purchase ASF. This study compared the diversity of ASF in the diet of children whose caregivers’ engaged in ASF‐related IGA and those engaged in an IGA unrelated to ASF. Data on household income and sociodemographics, and diets of 2‐ to 5‐y‐old children were collected through interviews with 251 caregivers in 6 rural and semi‐rural communities in 3 regions of Ghana. About 34% (n= 83) of caregivers were engaged in an ASF‐related IGA. Rural caregivers with ASF‐related IGA had a significantly higher weekly income than those in ASF‐unrelated IGA (p<0.05); however, a similar difference was not noted among semi‐rural caregivers. Rural children tended to have higher dietary ASF diversity than semi‐rural children (P=0.05). Children’s ASF diversity was not predicted by type of IGA. Weekly income of at least US$10.90, caregiver formal education, and rural location predicted children’s ASF diversity (P<0.001). Ability to purchase ASF in the market rather than its accessibility in the home through an IGA may be a more important determinant of ASF in children’s diets in rural and semi‐rural communities in Ghana. Support was through GL‐CRSP, funded in part by US‐AID, Grant # PCE‐G‐00‐98‐00036‐00 and J Ellis fellowship to Christian.

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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · 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→