Consumer awareness and self-reported behaviours related to salt consumption in Australia.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australians are eating far more salt than is good for health. In May 2007, the Australian Division of World Action on Salt and Health (AWASH) launched a campaign to reduce population salt intake. A consumer survey was commissioned to quantify baseline aspects of awareness and behaviour related to salt and health amongst Australians. A total of 1084 individuals aged 14 years or over were surveyed by ACA Research using an established consumer panel. Participants were selected to include people of each sex, within different age bands, from major metropolitan and other areas of all Australian states and territories. Participants were invited via email to complete a brief questionnaire online. Two-thirds knew that salt was bad for health but only 14% knew the recommended maximum daily intake. Seventy percent correctly identified that most dietary salt comes from processed foods but only a quarter regularly checked food labels for salt content. Even fewer reported their food purchases were influenced by the salt level indicated (21%). The survey showed a moderate understanding of how salt effects health but there was little evidence of action to reduce salt intake. Consumer education will be one part of the effort necessary to reduce salt intake in Australia and will require government investment in a targeted campaign to achieve improvements in knowledge and behaviours.
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.
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 it