MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147580490 · doi:10.1080/07315724.2014.883292

Dietary Adequacy among Rural Yup’ik Women in Western Alaska

2015· article· en· W2147580490 on OpenAlexaff
Sangita Sharma, Erin L. Mead, Desiree Simeon, Gary Ferguson, Fariba Kolahdooz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American College of Nutrition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
KeywordsGerontologyGeographyRural areaDemographyMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To assess (1) energy and nutrient intake; (2) dietary adequacy; (3) traditional and nontraditional foods consumed; and (4) main foods contributing to energy and selected nutrient intake among Yup'ik women in Western Alaska. METHODS: Up to 3 24-hour dietary recalls were collected to assess the dietary intake. Dietary adequacy was determined by comparing women's daily nutrient intakes to corresponding dietary reference intakes (DRIs). RESULTS: Mean daily energy intake for the women was 2172 kcal, exceeding the DRI for energy. The majority of women (90-100%) fell below the recommendations for dietary fiber, calcium, and vitamins D and E. More than 50% of women fell below the recommendations for vitamin A, and more than one third were below the DRI for zinc and vitamins C and B6. Juices/pop (including Tang, Kool-Aid, soda/pop, fruit juice, and energy drink), coffee, and traditional fish were the most frequently reported food items. Sweetened beverages and pop were the main contributors to energy, carbohydrate, and sugar intake. Traditional foods provided 34% of protein, 27% of iron, 23% of vitamin A, and 21% of zinc. CONCLUSIONS: Among Yup'ik women, juices/pop were the most frequently consumed foods contributing to the high energy intake. However, traditional food still contributes substantially to certain nutrients. These data contribute to an understanding of dietary adequacy in this population and will aid in the development of a nutritional intervention program.

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 score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American College of NutritionSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207