MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075340939 · doi:10.1017/s1368980008002577

Nutritional assessment of charitable meal programmes serving homeless people in Toronto

2008· article· en· W2075340939 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Carmen Tse, Valerie Tarasuk

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Nutrition · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMealNutrientEnvironmental healthMedicineFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess the potential nutritional contribution of meals provided in a sample of community programmes for homeless individuals, to determine the effect of food donations on meal quality and to develop food-based guidance for meals that would meet adults' total nutrient needs. SETTING: Toronto, Canada. DESIGN: An analysis of weighed meal records from eighteen programmes. The energy and nutrient contents of meals were compared to requirement estimates to assess contribution to total needs, given that homeless people have limited access to nutritious foods. Mixed linear modelling was applied to determine the relationship between the use of food donations and meal quality. The composition of meals that would meet adults' nutrient requirements was determined by constructing simulated meals, drawing on the selection of foods available to programmes. SAMPLE: In all, seventy meals, sampled from eighteen programmes serving homeless individuals. RESULTS: On average, the meals contained 2.6 servings of grain products, 1.7 servings of meat and alternatives, 4.1 servings of vegetables and fruits and 0.4 servings of milk products. The energy and nutrient contents of most meals were below adults' average daily requirements. Most meals included both purchased and donated foods; the vitamin C content of meals was positively associated with the percentage of energy from donations. Increasing portion sizes improved the nutrient contribution of meals, but the provision of more milk products and fruits and vegetables was required to meet adults' nutrient requirements. CONCLUSIONS: The meals assessed were inadequate to meet adults' nutrient requirements. Improving the nutritional quality of meals requires additional resources.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.350 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations50
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health NutritionSame topicHomelessness and Social IssuesFrench-language works237,207