MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042614784 · doi:10.1080/19440049.2014.913104

Chewing gum intake in Europe: a survey of intakes in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK

2014· article· en· W2042614784 on OpenAlexaff
À. P. Hearty, Annette Lau, Ashley Roberts

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives & Contaminants Part A · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsIntertek (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChewing gumPercentileMedicineDentistryFood scienceMathematicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A limited number of studies have examined chewing gum intakes in Europe. In the current study, chewing gum intakes were estimated in children, adolescents and adults via customised online questionnaires developed to collect data on patterns of chewing gum consumption (including usage, duration and gum variety) in September and October 2011. A total sample of chewing gum consumers composed of 1001 children and 5186 adolescents and adults from five European countries was included in the survey, with 79% and 66% of children and adolescents/adults reporting chewing gum in the previous 3 and 6 months, respectively. The intake of chewing gum on a per g basis was estimated by establishing the mean weights of each form of gum, and using factors for the frequency of chewing gum intake obtained through the online survey. Intakes of chewing gum at the mean, 90th and 95th percentile in children were 1.87, 3.79 and 6.59 g day(-1) (equivalent to 0.75, 1.67 and 2.40 pieces/day), respectively. In adolescents and adults, intakes at the mean, 90th and 95th percentile were 1.87, 5.40 and 8.00 g day(-1) (equivalent to 0.98, 3.00 and 4.00 pieces/day), respectively. Intakes were similar across the five countries. Chewing gum use was significantly higher in older compared with younger children and was significantly higher in adolescents compared with older adults. The data reported herein provide a reliable resource for chewing gum intakes in Europe and will be important for estimating exposure to food additives and flavourings intended for use in chewing gum.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations21
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Additives & Contaminants Part ASame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207