MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012885445 · doi:10.3402/ijch.v69i1.17387

Inuit dietary patterns in modern Greenland

2010· article· en· W2012885445 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter Bjerregaard, Charlotte Jeppesen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Circumpolar Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrbanizationNormativeGeographyPopulationStratumDemographyEnvironmental healthMedicineEcologySociologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the study was to apply two different approaches of dietary pattern definition to data from Greenland and to analyse the contemporary dietary patterns of the Inuit in Greenland in relation to urbanization and socio-economic positions. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional population survey. METHODS: A total of 2,247 Inuit aged 18+ from 15 towns and villages in West Greenland (25% of all communities) were interviewed about their diet as part of a general health survey. A 67-item Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) with portion sizes was used as the survey instrument. The analyses were based on 2,026 individuals who reported realistic daily energy intakes. Dietary patterns were determined by two different methods: a factor-cum-cluster analysis, and a normative approach based on adherence to dietary recommendations. RESULTS: The 2 approaches resulted in 6 respective and 5 partly overlapping dietary patterns. The distribution of patterns varied significantly according to age, gender, urbanization and socio-economic position. A healthy diet was most often reported by women aged 35+, who lived in towns and who belonged to the upper social stratum; an unhealthy diet was reported by young men and women irrespective of urbanization or social position; and a traditional diet was reported increasingly with age, among village residents and by hunters/fishermen and their families. CONCLUSIONS: The two methodological approaches gave comparable results. The normative approach can be extended to other data sets and its results are directly applicable to dietary intervention, while the data-driven approach can identify novel patterns but is tied to the actual data set.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations46
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Circumpolar HealthSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207