Chewing gum intake in Europe: a survey of intakes in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it