Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Inuit populations may be at increased risk for experiencing poor nutrition or hunger due to limited access and availability to food. The prevalence and correlates of parental perceptions of hunger among a nationally representative sample of Inuit children in Canada have not yet been reported. DESIGN: Data are from the 2006 Aboriginal Children's Survey (ACS). Sociodemographic information, dietary behaviours and hunger status were parent-reported via a household interview for Inuit children aged 2-5 years (n=1,234). Prevalence of hunger was calculated among Inuit children by sociodemographic factors and by dietary behaviours. In addition, a multivariate logistic regression model was conducted to determine factors associated with parental perception of ever experiencing hunger. RESULTS: The prevalence of Inuit children in Canada aged 2-5 years ever experiencing hunger was 24.4%. Children who were reported to have experienced hunger consumed milk and milk products (p<0.001); fish, eggs and meat (p<0.05); fruits (p<0.001); and vegetables (p<0.001) significantly less often than never-hungry children. Fast food and processed foods, soft drinks and juice, and salty snacks, sweets and desserts were consumed as often as never-hungry children (all p>0.05). The majority (81%) of Inuit parents/guardians of ever-hungry children sought help from family or friends. Factors associated with an increased likelihood of experiencing hunger include sociodemographic characteristics (such as income and household size), living in an Inuit region and living in a community with cultural activities. CONCLUSION: About 1 in 4 Inuit children were reported by their parents to have experienced hunger, and hunger was associated with region, sociodemographic and community factors. Future research could further examine the impact of ever experiencing hunger on the health status of Inuit children and their families 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".