Analysis of the Dietary Intakes of Canadian Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to assess intakes of energy, macronutrients and vitamin and minerals in a nationally representative sample of Canadian adults in comparison with Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). The DRI cut‐point method and the probability approach (specifically for iron in women) were used to determine the adequacy of dietary intakes. Responses were obtained from 1,833 individuals (aged 18 and older) who completed a web‐based Canadian Diet History Questionnaire in the spring of 2012, a validated food frequency questionnaire estimating dietary intakes over the past month. The average energy intake was 1644 + 3126Kcal/day, with 49% of total energy from carbohydrates, 33% from total fat and 16% from protein. Energy intakes were lower in females (1386kcal/day) compared to males (1879kcal/day) (p<0.05). Compared to the DRIs, a large proportion of respondents had inadequate intakes of folate (62%), magnesium (58%), potassium (91%), calcium (78%) and dietary fibre (89%). In contrast, most had adequate intakes of phosphorus, zinc, vitamin C, vitamin A, riboflavin and vitamin B12. Males generally had adequate intakes of thiamin (72%), vitamin B6 (65%) and niacin (93%). In comparison, the proportion of females with adequate intake of these nutrients was lower. As well, females aged 50 years and younger had a lower intake of iron compared with those aged older than 50 years (87% vs. 34%). Although, Canadians in general have intakes within acceptable ranges based on DRI recommendations, strategies are required to optimize the adequacy of Canadian's dietary intakes and to communicate information on a balanced diet. Funding Sources: UofT McHenry Chair research fund (ML); Dairy Farmers of Canada (ML); CIHR Public Health Policy Fellowship (MA).
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".