Knowledge, Perceptions, and Consumption of Whole Grains: Among University Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Differences in knowledge, perceptions, and consumption of whole grains were compared between students who had taken an introductory university nutrition course and those who had not. METHODS: The sample consisted of two groups: 109 students who had completed a nutrition course and 61 who had not. The two samples were drawn from second-year nursing students and students in second-year psychology courses, respectively. All students completed a 25-item questionnaire. Chi-square tests were used to identify associations between completion of a nutrition course and responses. RESULTS: Nutrition education students had more knowledge of whole grain recommendations, of whole grains available in stores, and of whole grains as a factor in disease risk reduction (p<0.05). In contrast, non-nutrition education students had more knowledge of whole grain health claims, reported a greater preference for the taste of whole grains, and had a greater than mean intake of whole grain cereals (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This prelimary study indicates that completion of an introductory nutrition course has a greater influence on positive perceptions of whole grains than on students' consumption frequency or knowledge of whole grains. Further study may provide more information on nutrition education and whole grains.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".