MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Beverage intake of Mexican school‐age children

2010· article· en· W2277183890 on OpenAlexaff
Margarita Safdie, Aryeh D. Stein, Catalina Torres, Laura Lirizarry, Anabelle Bonvecchio, Juan Á. Rivera

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Lifestyle Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthMedicineObesityOverweightCaloric intakeConsumption (sociology)Food intakeAdded sugarSugarDemographyFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Mexico is experiencing an increasing epidemic of childhood obesity. Caloric intake from beverages is not offset by reductions in caloric intake from food. The Mexican Government has instituted policies to reduce caloric beverage consumption in schools, but the contribution of caloric beverages to overall energy intake is not known. Objective To assess beverage intake in children 9–11 y old attending public schools in Mexico City. Methodology We administered a previously‐developed, child‐friendly beverage diary. Children (n=131) completed three weekday diaries and (96) one weekend diary. Results 3592 reports of beverage consumption were obtained. During weekdays, the distribution of consumed beverages was: sugar‐sweetened beverages 48.8%, natural water 31.3%, unsweetened whole milk beverages 11.4% During weekends 798 reports from 96 children were obtained, the distribution was: sugar‐sweetened beverages 58.1%, natural water 32.2%, unsweetened whole milk beverages 11.6%. Conclusion Caloric beverages are consumed frequently, especially on weekends and likely contribute to the growing prevalence of overweight in Mexican children.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.347 · 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicHealth and Lifestyle StudiesFrench-language works237,207