MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076879909 · doi:10.3148/67.1.2006.28

<i>Diet Quality of Atlantic Families</i> Headed by Single Mothers

2006· article· en· W2076879909 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
N. Theresa Glanville, Lynn McIntyre

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFood Security and Health in Diverse Populations
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityMount Saint Vincent University
FundersU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsPovertyMedicineEnvironmental healthLow incomeFood insecurityDemographyFood groupFood guideGerontologyGeographyFood securitySocioeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: As part of a larger study on food insecurity and dietary adequacy of low-income lone mothers and their children in Atlantic Canada, we examined diet quality among household members. METHODS: Network sampling for 'difficult to sample' populations was used to identify mothers living below the poverty line and alone with at least two children under age 14. Trained dietitians administered 24-hour dietary recalls weekly for one month to mothers on the dietary intake of themselves and their children. We calculated Healthy Eating Index category scores for eligible mothers (129) and children (303) using Canada's Food Guide to Healthy Eating and the Nutrition Recommendations for Canadians. RESULTS: Diet quality of low-income lone mothers was poor (35.5%) or in need of improvement (64.5%), with no mother having a good diet. The diet quality of children varied by age, with 22.7% of children aged one to three having a good diet or needing improvement (74.6%), 2.1% of children aged four to eight and no child aged nine to 14 having a good diet, while the diets of about 85% of older children in both age categories needed improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Younger children seem to be protected from poor quality diets in households with limited resources to acquire 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 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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.929

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.304
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations66
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicFood Security and Health in Diverse PopulationsFrench-language works237,207