MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011273581 · doi:10.3109/09637486.2010.504660

Nutritional composition of commonly consumed composite dishes in Trinidad

2010· article· en· W2011273581 on OpenAlexaff
D. Dan Ramdath, Debbie G. Hilaire, Andrea Brambilla, Sangita Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicronutrientComposition (language)Food composition dataFood sciencePopulationNutrientFood groupMedicineEnvironmental healthBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To calculate the nutritional composition of commonly consumed composite dishes in Trinidad in order to analyze dietary intakes obtained using a quantitative food frequency questionnaire developed specifically for the Trinidadian population. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Multiple weighed versions of each dish were collected from 53 participants throughout Trinidad. Nutritional composition was calculated using NutriBase Clinical Nutrition Manager. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: A total of 359 recipes were collected for 89 composite dishes: 19 vegetable, 15 starches, 21 meat/meat alternatives, eight seafood, 10 sweets, five beverages, 11 snacks/miscellaneous items. For each dish, the average nutritional composition (energy and 32 macronutrients/micronutrients) was calculated per 100 g. CONCLUSIONS: The calculated nutritional composition data of 89 commonly consumed dishes in Trinidad can now be used to assess dietary intakes and determine dietary risk factors for chronic disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Sciences and NutritionSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207