MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Folic Acid Food Fortification in Canada

2004· review· en· W2120700650 on OpenAlex
Joel G. Ray

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CarePhysicians' Services Incorporated FoundationInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsFortificationFolic acidFortified FoodFood fortificationMedicineEnvironmental healthFood scienceChemistryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By January 1998, most Canadian cereal grains (e.g., white flour) were being fortified with folic acid, with a large percentage being fortified by mid-1997. This was in compliance with both American and Canadian mandatory fortification deadlines of January and November 1998, respectively. It was estimated that between 0.1 to 0.2 mg of additional synthetic folic acid per day would be provided through this initiative, the goal of which was to lower the rate of neural tube defects (NTD). The current report outlines some of the changes to the health status of Canadians in relation to its folic acid food fortification initiative.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.243 · 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