Nutritional vulnerability among food‐insecure Canadian adults and children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Associations between food insecurity and compromised dietary intakes have been documented, with research indicating deteriorating intakes with increasing severity of food insecurity. However, there has been little examination of whether the dietary compromises associated with food insecurity are sufficient to alter the risk of nutrient inadequacies among adults or children. To examine this question, 24‐hour dietary recall data and 12‐month food security measures (derived from the 18‐item Food Security Module) from the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey (n = 35,107) were analyzed. Approximately 5% of children and 8% of adults lived in food‐insecure households in 2004. The relationship between adults' and children's nutrient intakes and food security status was assessed using regression analysis. The distributions of usual nutrient intakes were estimated for 10 age‐sex population subgroups, differentiating by food security status. Probability assessment methods were then applied to estimate the prevalence of inadequate intakes in each group. Mean intakes were lower and estimated prevalences of inadequacy were higher for adults in food‐insecure households in most age‐sex subgroups. Differences were most marked for protein, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, folate, magnesium, and zinc. Among older adults, food insecurity was associated with a higher prevalence of inadequacy of vitamin C. Fewer differences were apparent among children. This study documents the nutritional implications of the dietary compromises that occur in the context of food insecurity.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".