Ontario Older-Adult Programs: Self-Identified Interest in and Resources for Nutritional Risk Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Older-adult community programs are significant partners in the identification of need and delivery of health care for seniors. At present there is no systematic screening for nutritional risk in Ontario, and the interest and resources of community programs to screen is unknown. From three Ontario organizational membership lists, 200 programs were randomly selected; 136 key informants completed and returned the survey. A diverse sample of programs was included. Most were providing some form of nutrition programming, with the most common being meal provision. Two thirds (67.7%) were collecting some form of nutrition information: 56.4 per cent had an assessment questionnaire with nutrition information, and 21.8 per cent had clients subjectively assess their own nutritional risk. Most providers were interested in the nutritional health of their clients, and over half were interested in formally screening for nutritional risk. Barriers to screening were also identified. It is clear that nutrition is an area of priority for community programs and that nutrition screening is desired. Barriers to ethical screening need to be addressed prior to implementation of a systematic screening program.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".