Dietary intakes of Canadians in the 1990s using population-weighted data derived from the provincial nutrition surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Provincial nutrition surveys of adults were conducted between 1990 and 1999 in Canada. Eight reports have been issued, and one is forthcoming. The purpose of this study was to estimate the national dietary intake of adult Canadians, using the publicly available data. Group mean-nutrient-intake data from 16 915 adults, aged 18 to 84 years, from published provincial reports were collated by age and sex for each of 9 provinces (Manitoba data were unavailable). Using Canadian census data appropriate to the year of collection, intake data were weighted to provide 1 national intake value for each nutrient, by 8 age and sex categories. In general, the energy and nutrient intake of adults decreased with age. For every age group, with the exception of vitamin C, intake of nutrients by men was greater than that by women. On the basis of a comparison of recently recommended intakes (Dietary Reference Intakes), the nutrients that are of concern because of inadequate intake include dietary fibre, calcium, magnesium, and folate. The data demonstrate the impact of folate fortification on folate intake; the mean intake became twice that of prefortification levels. This study used group mean-intake data; therefore, we cannot make definitive conclusions about the prevalence of inadequacy for the nutrients. Because of limitations with some provincial response rates, our data should not be construed as representative of the Canadian population. However, because these surveys were completed between the 19701972 Nutrition Canada Survey and the 2004 Canadian Community Health Survey, these population-weighted data might be a useful point of comparison for monitoring trends in nutrient intake from food.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".