MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132370087 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v1n2p148

Identification of Traditional Foods with Public Health Potential for Complementary Feeding in Western Kenya

2012· article· en· W2132370087 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John Kinyuru, Silvenus Konyole, Glaston M. Kenji, Christine A. Onyango, Victor Owino, Bethwell Owuor, Benson Estambale, Henrik Friis, Nanna Roos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSeed and Plant Biochemistry
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDanish International Development AgencyJomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology
KeywordsLeafy vegetablesAmaranthus cruentusBiologyHealth benefitsAmaranthus hybridusJaggeryBiotechnologyGeographyFood scienceEnvironmental healthTraditional medicineAmaranthBotanyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diversity of traditional foods in Kisumu West District of Western Kenya was assessed with an aim to identify the foods with a potential for complementary feeding. Leaves were the most consumed plant part amongst vegetables, while a few fruits were consumed together with their seeds. Amaranthus cruentus L. was found to be consumed as a leafy vegetable while another variety, Amaranthus hybridus L. was found to be consumed as a grain. Four species of winged termites, a grasshopper, black ant and dagaa fish were also identified. Twelve of the traditional foods were found to be associated with nutritional and health benefits as perceived by the locals. Traditional food processing methods such as boiling, fermentation and sun drying were identified. Thus exploitation of the species possessing nutrient, health and processing benefits needs to be explored in complementary feeding.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.262
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.099 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicSeed and Plant BiochemistryFrench-language works237,207