Determinants of healthy eating in community-dwelling elderly people.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among seniors, food choice and related activities are affected by health status, biological changes wrought by aging and functional abilities, which are mediated in the larger arena by familial, social and economic factors. Determinants of healthy eating stem from individual and collective factors. Individual components include age, sex, education, physiological and health issues, psychological attributes, lifestyle practices, and knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and behaviours, in addition to other universal dietary determinants such as income, social status and culture. Collective determinants of healthy eating, such as accessible food labels, an appropriate food shopping environment, the marketing of the "healthy eating" message, adequate social support and provision of effective, community-based meal delivery services have the potential to mediate dietary habits and thus foster healthy eating. However, there is a startling paucity of research in this area, and this is particularly so in Canada. Using search and inclusion criteria and key search strings to guide the research, this article outlines the state of knowledge and research gaps in the area of determinants of healthy eating among Canadian seniors. In conclusion, dietary self-management persists in well, independent seniors without financial constraints, whatever their living arrangements, whereas nutritional risk is high among those in poor health and lacking in resources. Further study is necessary to clarify contributors to healthy eating in order to permit the development and evaluation of programs and services designed to encourage and facilitate healthy eating in older Canadians.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".