<i>Process Evaluation of</i> Bringing Nutrition Screening to Seniors in Canada (BNSS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although nutrition risk is prevalent in Canadian older adults, the process of screening must be considered before nationwide programs can be recommended. A process evaluation of the Bringing Nutrition Screening to Seniors in Canada demonstration project was completed. Through the use of the 15-item Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition (SCREEN(c)) questionnaire, risk was identified in convenience samples of 1,196 community-living older adults recruited from five Canadian communities. All at-risk participants were offered referrals to community resources. Telephone follow-up of at-risk participants occurred after screening. Telephone interviews with screening administrators and older adults revealed screening benefits and challenges. Nutrition risk occurred in 38.9% of the sample. Most participants found screening helpful. Among the at-risk group (n=465), 39% accepted referrals for additional services. Older adults provided several reasons for refusing referrals, including denial of risk. Dietitian services were an identified gap, as were prevention-level resources. Nutrition risk is prevalent and older adults can benefit from screening. Training, ongoing support, and prioritization (policy, time, and money) are needed for sustainable screening programs. Before implementation of a nationwide screening program, sufficient and appropriate community resources are required, as is a national strategy for screening older adults.
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 | 0.046 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".