MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031540403 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v4n6p204

Eating Behaviors of Older Adults Participating in Government-Sponsored Programs with Different Demographic Backgrounds

2012· article· en· W2031540403 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicNutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarital statusChecklistMedicineGerontologyFocus groupNutrition EducationEnvironmental healthPsychologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to determine the food behaviors of nutritionally high-risk seniors as a function of their racial background, gender, marital status, and education level. A total of 69 seniors were identified to be at high nutritional risk using the Nutrition Screening Initiative (NSI) checklist. A supplemental questionnaire (SQ) was created to examine the risk factors in relation to the participant's demographic background. Key results indicated that Asians practiced healthy food behaviors and women were more likely to eat alone (p?0.05). Married participants (90.9%) were most likely to consume 2 meals or more each day. College educated individuals practiced healthier eating, eating 5 servings or more of fruits and vegetables (p?0.01) and 2 or more servings of milk and milk products (p?0.01). These preliminary findings indicate that more studies should be conducted to focus on the demographic characteristics and food behaviors among older populations.

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.

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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.309 · 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