Attitudes et habitudes de Canadiens relativement: à la planification des repas et à la cuisine maiso
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To describe the attitudes and habits of Canadians in relation to planning and preparing meals at home, in order to identify motivations that can be used to promote home cooking. METHODS: An electronic survey consisting of 39 multiple-choice questions was posted on the Dietitians of Canada website between November 16 and December 22, 2006. The statements analyzed have to do with perceived benefits associated with home cooking, obstacles preventing people from cooking, preparation time and meal planning, learning to cook, and sources of recipe ideas. RESULTS: A total of 4,080 people filled out the questionnaire. Although they believe that home cooking can improve diet quality and eating behaviours, respondents experience several obstacles relating to day-to-day food preparation. Among these are lack of time, energy, ideas, and planning. CONCLUSIONS: This study underlines the relevance of creating strategies not only for educating consumers about the benefits of home cooking, but also for providing practical information to help them overcome obstacles limiting the day-to-day preparation of food.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".