Do Canadians meet Canada's Food Guide's recommendations for fruits and vegetables?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
National dietary guidelines pertaining to the intake of fruits and vegetables (FV) were recently amended, in both Canada and the United States, to provide specific recommendations about dark green and orange vegetables and juice consumption. However, little is known about the extent to which Canadians meet the updated recommendations for FV. This study fills current gaps by applying the National Cancer Institute's methodology for assessing the distribution of usual intake of foods to examine reported FV intake using 24-h recalls from the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey, cycle 2.2, a nationally representative health survey. After identifying plausible respondents, usual intake distributions were estimated after adjustment for respondents' age, sex, body mass index, frequency of FV consumption, sequence effect, weekend-weekday effect, income, and ethnicity. The majority of Canadians did not meet Health Canada's 2007 recommendations for FV intake. Only 26% of the population aged 2 years and older consumed the minimum number of daily servings recommended for their respective age-sex group. Approximately 1 in 5 Canadians consumed at least 1 daily serving of dark green vegetables, and 9% consumed 1 or more daily servings of orange vegetables or their substitutes. Juice was a substantial contributor to FV intake, particularly for children and teens who, on average, consumed 32%-41% of their daily FV servings as juice. These findings provide insight into the quantity and composition of FV intake and adherence to national dietary recommendations in Canada.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".