Dietary adequacy and alcohol consumption of <scp>I</scp>nuvialuit women of child‐bearing age in the <scp>N</scp>orthwest <scp>T</scp>erritories, <scp>C</scp>anada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies highlight a possible association between alcohol-drinking patterns and dietary inadequacies, which may have negative implications, particularly for women of child-bearing age. The present study aimed to compare dietary adequacy among alcohol drinkers versus nondrinkers in Inuvialuit women of child-bearing age. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 92 randomly selected women of childbearing age (19-44 years) was conducted in three communities in the Northwest Territories of Arctic Canada, using a validated quantitative food frequency questionnaire. Data were analysed to compare mean daily energy and nutrient intakes, dietary adequacy and nutrient densities (per 4184 kJ) between alcohol drinkers and nondrinkers, as well as heavy drinkers and nonheavy drinkers, using the nonparametric Wilcoxen rank sum test. RESULTS: The response rate was between 65% and 85% depending on the community sampled. Of the study participants, 54% (n = 49) were drinkers and 46% (n = 42) were nondrinkers. Of the drinkers, 45% (n = 22) were heavy drinkers. Mean energy intakes were high among all women, although they were significantly higher among drinkers [17,179 kJ (4106 kcal)] compared to nondrinkers [13,317 kJ (3183 kcal)]. There were no significant differences in nutrient intake between the two groups; however, drinkers had a lower nutrient density for most nutrients. Heavy drinkers had a significantly lower nutrient density for all nutrients, except protein, iron, and vitamins B6 , C and D, compared to nonheavy drinkers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present study provide evidence of inadequate dietary intake among Inuvialuit of child-bearing age, regardless of alcohol-drinking behaviour.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".