Nutrient intakes, major food sources and dietary inadequacies of <scp>I</scp>nuit adults living in three remote communities in <scp>N</scp>unavut, <scp>C</scp>anada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inuit in Nunavut, Canada, are currently undergoing a nutritional transition that may contribute to an increased prevalence of chronic disease. Information is lacking about the extent to which contemporary Inuit diets are meeting current dietary recommendations. METHODS: A culturally appropriate quantitative food frequency questionnaire (QFFQ) developed and validated for Inuit in Nunavut, Canada, was used to assess food and nutrient intake in a cross-sectional sample of adults. RESULTS: Participants included 175 women and 36 men with mean (SD) ages of 42.4 (13.2) and 42.1 (15.0) years, respectively. The response rate for those who completed the study was 79% with 208 QFFQs included for analysis. Reported mean daily energy intakes were: men 15,171 kJ (3626 kcal); women 11,593 kJ (2771 kcal). Dietary inadequacy was expressed as the percentage of participants reporting intakes below the sex- and age-specific estimated average requirements (EARs). For nutrients without EARs, adequate intakes were used. Energy and sodium intakes exceeded the recommendations. Less than 10% of participants met recommendations for dietary fibre intake. Vitamin E intakes were below EARs for ≥97% of participants, whereas >20% reported inadequate vitamin A, folate and magnesium intakes. Among women, >50% reported inadequate calcium and vitamin D intakes. Non-nutrient-dense foods contributed 30% of energy, 73% of sugars and 22% of fat. Traditional foods contributed 56% of protein and 49% of iron. CONCLUSIONS: The present study demonstrates a relatively high prevalence of inadequate nutrient intakes among Inuit. The results may be used to monitor the nutrition transition among Inuit, evaluate nutritional interventions, and inform public health policy decision-making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".