MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2225839446 · doi:10.3148/72.1.2011.24

Développement d'une grille d'analyse: des menus en services de garde à la petite enfance

2011· article· fr· W2225839446 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Élodie Gelin, Marie Marquis, Stéphanie Côté, Julie Deschamps, Mylène Duplessis Brochu, P. Castellini Grand, Marie-Josée Leblanc

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicObesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)Healthy eatingHealthy foodQuality (philosophy)BusinessPsychologyMedicineFood sciencePhysical activityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A review of the literature reveals that there are currently no tools available to analyze the quality of the menus provided in daycare centres. An analysis grid has been developed for this purpose, specifically targeting the food served to preschool children aged 18 months and over. The tool was produced on the basis of findings from recent scientific research. The final version of the grid features 25 statements that cover types of menus, the food groups and recommendations of Canada's Food Guide, sources of protein, the supply of beverages,processed foods, cariogenic products, nutritional variety,allergens and sensory properties of foods. The data gathered using this grid will help establish recommendations for daycare administrators and kitchen managers with respect to various considerations that are key to promoting healthy eating habits in early childhood. The limitations to its use stem from the need to complement these recommendations by conducting an analysis of the recipes and ingredients used, the beverages served and the portion sizes offered.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.325 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Dietetic Practice and ResearchSame topicObesity, Physical Activity, DietFrench-language works237,207