Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cross‐sectional survey was conducted in Canada, in July, 2003 on a nationally representative sample of mothers with infants aged four to 12 months. A total of 14,000 surveys were mailed to new mothers with a response rate of 21% providing a total of more than 3000 infants. The survey consisted of a main questionnaire to assess demographic information and a four day food diary. Foods were considered to be Homemade (HM) if they were made from perishable products and Store‐Bought (SB) if they were a frozen store‐bought product, a canned store‐bought product, or another store‐bought non‐baby food product. For babies aged 3–12 months 33% of the total solid volume fed was contributed by Jarred foods, 31% from Cereals, 20% from HM, and 16% from SB. As a percentage of number of tablespoons of food consumed, cereal fell from 65% at three months of age to 19% at 11/12 months of age. Jarred foods increased from 18% at three months to 39% at seven months, but fell to 23% by 11/12 months of age. HM foods increased from 11% of total food consumed at three months to 27% at 11/12 months of age. Calculated energy intakes from complimentary solid food were: 110 ± 140 At 3–5 months; 235 ± 170 at 6–8 months; and 370 ± 230 Kcals/day at 9–12 months compared to 130 (6–8) and 310 (9–12) recommendations. As reported for US infants, in the FITS study, Canadian infants may be consuming in excess of what they require in later infancy. This data also suggests early introduction of solid foods by 3 months for some Canadian infants and usually cereal based. The World Health Organization (WHO) now recommends feeding infants breast milk exclusively until six months of age. How this new controversial recommendation will change the timing of introduction of solid foods and ultimately iron status remains to be seen. This project was supported by Heinz Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".